Allowed

Shri Adiveppa S/O Somalingappa Bolannavar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024WP/100587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition in nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representations for granting land under the Exserviceman quota within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to consider the petitions petition's representations dated 16.07.2016 and 01.09.2021 within a period of three months.

Shri Adiveppa S/O Somalingappa Bolannavar Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5943 WP No. 100587 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.100587/2024(KLR-LG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI ADIVEPPA S/O. SOMALINGAPPA BOLANNAVAR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND EX-SERVICEMEN, R/O: MURAGOD, TQ: SAUDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 117.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, AND SRI ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI – 590 001, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 102.

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, SAUDATTI TALUKA, SAUDATTI, TQ: SAUDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 126.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5943 WP No. 100587 of 2024

¶21

MANDAMUS OR A WRIT OF ANY OTHER NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO ALLOT THE LAND TO THE PETITIONER AS PER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 16/07/2016 AND 01/09/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to consider his representations dated 16.07.2016 and 01.09.2021 produced as per Annexures-D and E.

¶25

Heard Sri Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel, and Sri Roshan Saheb Chabb, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt.kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the Ex. Serviceman, who is in possession of 6 acres of land in R.S.No.597 situated at Muragod village and same may be granted in his favour under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, considering the service rendered by the petitioner. He has given the representation as per the Annexures-D and E, but the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5943 WP No. 100587 of 2024

¶28

same is not considered by the respondents. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that even though a direction was issued to seek instructions from the respondents regarding the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, she could not get any instructions from them and hence, prays for passing appropriate orders.

¶30

Perused the materials on record.

¶31

According to the petitioner, he is an Ex-

¶32

serviceman and he is entitled for grant of land under Exserviceman quota under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The petitioner is said to be in possession of 6 acres of land in R.S.No.597 and has given representations as per Annexures-D and E. Admittedly, the said representations which are dated 16.07.2016 and 01.09.2021, are not yet considered.

¶33

The petitioner has given the details of land which could be considered for granting in his favour. The

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5943 WP No. 100587 of 2024

¶35

representation made by the petitioner is to be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to allow the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

a) The petition is allowed.

¶38

b) The respondents are directed to consider the representations dated 16.07.2016 and 01.09.2021 produced as per Annexures-D and E within a period of three months. Failing which the petitioner is at liberty to take necessary steps in that regard.

¶39

AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

¶40

SD/JUDGE

Shri Adiveppa S/O Somalingappa Bolannavar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Adiveppa S/O Somalingappa Bolannavar v. 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

Naganagouda S/O. Shivanagouda Neeralagi, Vs Balappa S/O. Fakkirappa Jogannavar

The Registrar Vs Smt.Shakuntala W/O. Gangadhar Sadani

Basappa S/O Channamallappa Naragund Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Tanuja D/O. Homi Belgaumvala Vs Khasim Sab

Ningappa S/O. Basappa Desai Vs the State of Karnataka

Atc Telecome Tower Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Government of Karnataka