Disposed

K v. Parameshwarappa v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2024WP/105349/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a notice issued by the Tahsildar, Sirsi, regarding alleged occupation of non-agriculture land under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner, claiming landless status, argued the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction to issue such notices. The respondent AGA contended the notice could be treated as one from the Deputy Commissioner. The court disposed of the matter by tr

What did the court decide?

Show cause notice issued by respondent No.3 treated as notice by respondent No.2; petitioners granted liberty to file objections within 15 days; respondents directed not to take precipitate action on

K v Parameshwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15257 WP No. 105349 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 105349 OF 2024 (LR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

K.V. PARAMESHWARAPPA,

¶11

AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.26,

¶12

PRAMOD SIDDANNA JAKLANNAVAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.27,

¶13

SMT. JAINABI W/O. ALLABHAKSHA DASANKOPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY LR

¶14

MANJANNA

¶15

¶16

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶17

BABUSAB S/O. ALLABHAKSHA DASANKOPPA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.28,

¶18

CHANNAPPA S/O. SANNAKAMMANNA JAKKLANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY LR,

¶19

SURESH S/O. CHANNAPPA JAKKLANNAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.29,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15257 WP No. 105349 of 2024

¶21

SANNIRAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA PATIL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.30,

¶22

BHASKAR S/O. KRISHNA SHET, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.31 & 32,

¶23

MALLIKARJUN S/O. CHANNAPPA JAKKALANNAVAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.33,

¶24

MANJAPPA @ MANJUNATH S/O. HANUMANTAPPA KAMMAR, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.34,

¶25

SHRI GEETA W/O. VASANT SHANBAG, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.43/A & 43/B,

¶26

SADANAND S/O. DUNDAPPA SANNANAVAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.35,

¶27

MALLIKARJUN S/O. DUNDAPPA SANNANAVAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.35,

¶28

VENKATRAMANA S/O. NARASIMHA HEGDE, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.36,

¶29

SURESH S/O. GANESH RAIKAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.37,

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15257 WP No. 105349 of 2024

¶31

MARIYAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA GONDALE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.38,

¶32

PRAKASH S/O. DUNDAPPA SANNANAVAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.39,

¶33

JAKIRHUSEN S/O. ALLABHAKSH DASANKOPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.40,

¶34

KRISHNA S/O. VITTAL SARVADE, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR, R/O. HOUSE NO.41,

¶35

CHANNABASAPPA S/O. MAILARAPPA BOCHHALI, SINCE DECEASED BY LR.

¶36

SMT. GANGA W/O. SADASHIVA MADIWAL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.42,

¶37

LAKKAPPA S/O. GIRIYAPPA TALWAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOUSE NO.43/A,

¶38

GURUNATH S/O. LAXMANSA KALBURGI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.44,

¶39

HANUMANT S/O. NARAYANAPPA BADDI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.45,

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15257 WP No. 105349 of 2024

¶41

ROSHANTHAPPA D. S/O. RUDRAPPA POOJAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.46,

¶42

MAHAMMEDRAFI S/O. BABAJAN MITEGAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. HOUSE NO.24,

¶43

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF BADANGODA, POST: DANSANKOPPA, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR-581 358.

¶44

…PETITIONERS

¶45

(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶48

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-581301.

¶49

THE TAHSILDAR SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR-581401.

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA)

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶53

i. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE AT NO.BHOOMI/ATIKRAMANA/KERE/VIVA/2024-25 DATED 02/09/2024 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR SIRSI THE

¶54

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15257 WP No. 105349 of 2024

¶55

RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO A21 TO THE WRIT PETITION AS ILLEGAL.

¶56

ii. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS AS THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶57

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

¶58

ORAL ORDER

¶59

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶61

Learned AGA takes notice for respondent

¶62

No.1 to 3.

¶63

This petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned notice dated 22.09.2024 issued by the Tahasildar, Sirsi, who was respondent No.3 at Annexures-A to A21. Consequently, seeking a writ of mandamus to pass any other suitable orders.

¶64

Petitioners claim to be landless persons belonging to the weaker section of the society. They had put up construction for residential house on the goutana land proved to be a non-agriculture land. The Gram

¶65

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15257 WP No. 105349 of 2024

¶66

Panchayat has allotted the house number and collected tax from the date of construction of the house till this day and issued necessary certificate for obtaining electricity, ration card and voters identity card to the petitioners.

¶67

This being the state of affairs, respondent No.3 got issued a notice to the petitioners under Sections 39, 67, 190 and 192 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (in short ‘the Act’). It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.V.Yaji that the notice issued by the respondent No.3 lacks jurisdiction of authority and powers are not vested with him to issue such a notice, as it is only the Deputy Commissioner who is authorized to issue a notice under Section 39 of the Act with regard to show cause notice or directing petitioners to vacate the land or building or the occupation from such place.

¶68

Therefore he is questioning the authority of respondent No.3 in issuance of notice which lacks jurisdiction and authority. The fact of issuance of notice by

¶69

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15257 WP No. 105349 of 2024

¶70

the respondent No.3 is not disputed by learned AGA appearing for State. However, learned AGA contends that the said notice issued by the respondent No.3 could be treated as show cause notice issued by the respondent No.2 and accordingly it shall be treated as a show cause notice.

¶71

The petitioner would be given liberty to file their

¶72

objections and the respondents would hear the petitioners and pass suitable orders within a reasonable time.

¶73

Under the circumstances, the submissions

¶74

put-forth by the learned AGA and learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable. Accordingly the petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶75

i. The show cause notice issued by the respondent No.3 shall be treated as notice issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioners herein.

¶76

ii. Petitioners are at liberty to file objections to the said impugned notices along with relevant documents within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶77

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15257 WP No. 105349 of 2024

¶78

iii. Respondent No.3 shall consider the objections, if any filed, and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

¶79

iv. It is made it clear, until such time objections are filed and orders are passed, the respondents shall not take any precipitative action against the petitioner with regard to possession.

¶80

Ordered accordingly.

¶81

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶82

RHR/CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

K v. Parameshwarappa v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K v. Parameshwarappa 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

Bhushan S/O Vasant Bangodi Vs Jayashankar Kalkundrikar Multi-Purpose

Raju Honnayya Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Savita W/O Girimalla Gudennavar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sayema Furniture, Vs the State of Karnataka

Jai Hanuman Furniture Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Geeta D/O Melgirigouda Policepatil Vs the State of Karnataka