Disposed

Smt. Padamakshi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023WP/993/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of writ petition challenging Deputy Commissioner's remand order under Rule 25 Karnataka Land Grant Rules regarding house site grant conditions. Court found no ground to interfere with remand order allowing fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Matter disposed of with no ground to interfere with impugned remand order; perused papers and heard counsel.

Smt. Padamakshi Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

WP No. 993 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 993 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PADAMAKSHI W/O LATE A SRINIVASA BHAT SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER SON MR. A S BHOJARAJ S/O LATE A SRINIVASA BHAT AGED ABOUT 78 YEAR HUDCO COLONY, MANIPAL SHIVALLI GRAMA UDUPI TALUK.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MS. MEDINA RAO, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DEUPTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATHADRI MANIPAL-571011.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPURA-571811.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 993 of 2023

¶18

4. THE THASILDAR UDUPI TALUK-572101.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI H.R.SHOWRI, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER BEARING NO. CDS.R.A.P.S.R/24/2022 DATED 31^ST OCTOBER, 2022 (ANNEXURE Q) AND DIRECT THE R4 TO ISSUE KATHA IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSE SITE IN SY.NO.87 OF 80 BADAGUBETTU VILLAGE, UDAPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT MEASURING 0.05 ACRES VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 28.05.1987 ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Even though the petition is at the stage of preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

Heard learned counsel Ms.Medini Rao for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.H.R.Showri for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶26

the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and

¶27

3 - WP No. 993 of 2023

¶28

legality of the order dated 31.10.2022 bearing No.CDS.R.A.P.S.R/24/2022 passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to Tahsildar for fresh enquiry with regard to the grant. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mother of the petitioner was granted a house site in

¶29

Sy.No.87 of 80 Badagabettu village, Udupi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District under Annexure-A dated 25.08.1987. She was in possession of the said property and was residing in the said property by constructing a shed. Learned counsel would submit that after demise of petitioner’s mother, the petitioner submitted an application to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of the property in question. The said request was rejected on the ground that no house is constructed on the land and there is violation of conditions of grant, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 02.06.2022 set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar to enquire with regard to possession

¶30

¶31

WP No. 993 of 2023

¶32

of the petitioner and then take action to effect katha. The Tahsildar, on remand, by order dated 02.11.2021 held that the petitioner’s mother failed to construct the house and she is not residing in the village. The said order was the subject matter before the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal of the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to make fresh enquiry with regard to grant and to take appropriate action.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the order under challenge is a remand order and the petitioner would get an opportunity to place the relevant material before the Tahsildar to demonstrate that the petitioner is a resident of the village in question and also she is residing in the shed constructed in the site in question.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶35

on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view

¶36

¶37

WP No. 993 of 2023

¶38

that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the second respondentDeputy Commissioner. The order impugned herein is a remand order directing the Tahsildar to re-enquire into the claim of the petitioner under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and to take appropriate action. The petitioner would get an opportunity to place on record the relevant material before the Tahsildar and it is for the Tahsildar to look into the material made available and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶39

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt. Padamakshi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Padamakshi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thammegowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Joanna Seraphine D Souza Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T. Vijaya Vs State of Karnataka

Sobha Assets Private Limited Vs Special Agricultural Produce Market Committe for Fruits, Flowers and Vegetables

Smt Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

B Mallikarjun Vs the Special Deputy Commissioenr