Partly allowed

Sri B v. Venkatesh v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2023WP/9506/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the Court issued a mandatory writ directing the Tahsildar to consider a representation for surveying and marking the disputed boundary between Malur and Devarahalli villages. The Court reserved disposal of other pleas involving encroachment pending the outcome of the survey.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directed the Tahsildar to consider the representation for surveying and marking the Malur Village boundary along with Devarahalli Village and the boundaries of site No.1040/785.

Sri B v Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 9506 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9506 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B. V. VENKATESH, S/O SRI. VENKATAGIRIGOWDA (LATE), AGED 52 YEARS, R/O BYRAPATNA VILLAGE, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K. S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE TALUK PANCHAYAT, BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

¶15

MALUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BY ITS SECRETARY, MALUR VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 9506 of 2017

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.

¶19

SRI. RAJU @ KAVERIGIRIGOWDA, S/O SRI. DODDAHAIDEGOWDA, AGED 43 YEARS, R/O BYRAPATNA MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTIRCT - 562 160.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B. J. SOMAYAJI, ADVO., FOR R2 AND R3; R5 SERVED;

¶22

SMT. A. R. SHARADAMBA, AGA FOR R1 AND R4)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- DIRECT HIM TO CONDUCT THE SURVEY OF MALUR VILLAGE LIMIT IN SO FAR AS THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE FREE SITE NO.1040/385 DISTRIBUTED TO THIS PETITIONER AS PER ANNX-A, IDENTIFYING THE SAME WHILE FIXING THE BORDER LINE OF MALUR VILLAGE AND FENCING THE SAME FROM DEVARAHALLI BORDER LINE SITUATED AT BYRAPATNA VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, THEREBY REMOVING ALL THE ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENT MADE BY THE R-5 ACROSS THE BORDER LINE FORTHWITH EXPEDITIOUSLY WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY WHATSOEVER AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

¶28

WP No. 9506 of 2017

¶29

a) "Issue writ of mandamus against the fourth respondent by way of direction, directing him to conduct the survey of Malur Village limit insofar as the western side of the free site No.1040/385 distributed to this petitioner as per Annexure-A; identifying the same while fixing the border line of Malur Village and fencing the same from Devarahalli Border line situated at Byrapatna Village, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District, thereby removing all the illegal encroachment made by the fifth respondent across the border line forthwith expeditiously without further delay whatsoever;

¶30

b) Issue writ of mandamus against the third respondent directing them to assist the fourth respondent effectively and efficiently in carrying out the survey work of Malur Village Panchayat Limit as prayed in prayer in column No.(a), situated at Byrapatna Village, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District without any fear or favour from the fifth respondent forthwith;

¶31

c) Issue writ of mandamus against the third respondent directing them to permit this petitioner to level the area of his free site No.1040/385 across the border of Malur Village insofar as the western boundary is concerned, as per the extent shown in the Hakku-patra issued under the Ashraya Yojane, annexure-A;

¶32

d) Issue writ or orders as may be just and proper against the fifth respondent who has clandestinely encroached the border line of Malur Village Panchayat limit and put up illegal house construction cutting across the border line with the connivance of the third respondent and in doing so he has illegally encroached the land of this petitioner also, by imposing exemplary cost on him for defying the law and order of the country;

¶33

e) Issue writ or orders as against the respondents as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case including the cost of this litigation throughout to meet the ends of justice."

¶34

The petitioner being a permanent resident of Byrapatna

¶35

Village, Malur Hobli, Channapatana Taluk, Ramanagara

¶36

¶37

WP No. 9506 of 2017

¶38

District submits that there being a dispute over the boundary of Malur Village and Devarahalli Village. Respondent No.3 had sought to exercise jurisdiction over the property of the petitioner. As such, the representation was submitted on 23.10.2014 to carryout the survey and identify the property as above the boundaries of the two villages. Despite the said representation having been submitted, the grievance of the petitioner is no such survey has been carried out.

¶39

Whenever a representation or application is made to any statutory authority or government authority, the said authority is required to consider the same in accordance with law and either accept or reject the request made. Hence, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Petition is partly-allowed. Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to consider the representation of the petitioner for survey and marking of Malur Village boundary along with Devarahalli Village as also the boundaries of site No.1040/785. This Court has not

¶42

¶43

WP No. 9506 of 2017

¶44

expressed any opinion as regards the other prayers which have been sought for. The same can only be considered

¶45

after a survey is carried out.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: ABS

Sri B v. Venkatesh v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B v. Venkatesh 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

Sri Lakshminarayana Co. Operative Bank Limited Vs the Joint Registrar of Cooperative

Mrs. Nefeesa Sheikh Ahamed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kalikamba Souharda Sahakari Niyamita Vs the Block Education Officer

The Tumkur District Bhagiratha Vs the Commissioner

Eranna Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka