Disposed

Sri. H. S. Kantharaju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023WP/9254/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On preliminary hearing, the High Court of Karnataka held that directing consideration of a 1998 application is inappropriate after fifteen years considering a 2001 order already passed. The court recommended the petitioner make a fresh representation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a fresh representation within two weeks; the competent authority must consider it within three months.

Sri. H. S. Kantharaju Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:40389 WP No. 9254 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.9254 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. H. S. KANTHARAJU SON OF LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALASINANAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, M.N. KOTE POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 302.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR GUBBI TALUK,

¶17

TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 301.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:40389 WP No. 9254 of 2023

¶20

THE TAHASILDAR AND SECRETARY COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF LANDS, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 301.

¶21

THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ECOLOGY REPRESENTED BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, GUBBI RANGE, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 301.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN FORM NO.52 BY THE PETITIONER ON 15.11.1998 FOR GRANT/ REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF IMMOVABLE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY BEARING SY.36 MEASURING 2 ACRES, SITUATED AT HALASINANAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT AS CONSIDERED IN OTHER SIMILARLY PLACED CASES IN PROCEEDINGS IN LND RUC (N) CR.61, 62/91-92 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D, E AND N RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

¶26

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40389 WP No. 9254 of 2023

¶28

ORDER

¶29

In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents to consider the application submitted in Form 52 by the petitioner on 15.11.1998 for regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of immovable property in question.

¶30

In that view of the matter, the prayer made in this writ petition is with regard to consideration of the application of the year 1998 and therefore, I am of the view that, after fifteen years, a direction cannot be issued to the respondent - authority to discharge duty. That apart, the Committee constituted for Regularisation of Unauthorised Cultivation has passed the order dated 27.08.2001 as per Annexure-H. Therefore, I am of the view that, it is open for the petitioner to make one more representation to the competent authority to redress his grievances. In such an event, if an application is made by the petitioner herein within two weeks from the date of

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:40389 WP No. 9254 of 2023

¶33

receipt of certified copy of this order, same shall be considered by the respondent concerned within three months from the date of receipt of such an application, in accordance with law.

¶34

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri. H. S. Kantharaju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H. S. Kantharaju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopalappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sriram Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S Vishwanath @ Gundappa Vs the Tahsildar

Sri. Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

J Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Arif. K Vs the Tahashildar