Disposed

Mr. Arif. K v. the Tahashildar

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023WP/9938/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed the Tahashildar to consider the petitioner's application for regularisation of land held as unauthorized occupant, pending a rival claim by a third party, and issued a stay against coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.1 (Tahashildar) to consider the petitioner's application and any rival application within four months, with a stay on coercive action against the petitioner.

Mr. Arif. K Vs the Tahashildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40384 WP NO.9938 OF 2023

¶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.9938 OF 2023 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. ARIF K. S/O MOHAMMAD K. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, KEDILA KODI HOUSE, KEDILA KODI, BANTWALA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 220.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE TAHASHILDAR TALUK OFFICE, B.C. ROAD, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 219.

¶13

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

¶14

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR VITLA HOBLI, TALUK OFFICE, B.C. ROAD, BANTWAL - 574 219.

¶15

THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT OFFICER KEDILA GRAMA , BANTWALA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 219.

¶16

MR. VISWANATH RAI S/O SHENNAPPA RAI KEDILA KODI,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:40384 WP NO.9938 OF 2023

¶19

KEDILA VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 219.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS UNDER FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.57 DATED 27^TH NOVEMBER, 2018 IN SURVEY NO.150/2 OF KEDILA KODI VILLAGE, KEDILA KODI, BANTWALA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-consideration of application filed by the petitioner in Form No.57 dated 27^th November, 2018 in respect of Survey NO.150/2 of Kadila Kodi Village, Bantwala Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District by the respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A.

¶26

Heard Sri. Rajarama S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40384 WP NO.9938 OF 2023

¶28

Sri. Rajarama S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as un-authorized occupant for more than two decades and therefore, the petitioner has made application in Form No.57, seeking regularisation of land in question on the ground that the petitioner is in cultivation of Areca plants in the aforementioned land.

¶29

Per contra, Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents submits that the rival application has been made by the respondent No.4 with regard to the same land.

¶30

Having taken note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the writ petition at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner has planted Areca plants in the subject land, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the application made by the petitioner herein as per AnnexureA and application made by the respondent No.4, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:40384 WP NO.9938 OF 2023

¶33

limit of four months from the date of receipt of this. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

¶34

It is made clear that, till the consideration of application made by the petitioner, neither the respondentAuthorities nor the respondent No.4 shall take any coercive action against the petitioner.

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

ARK

Mr. Arif. K v. the Tahashildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Arif. K v. the Tahashildar

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

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