Writ petition challenging a land grant order dismissed as not entertained. Court held statutory appeal remedy is available to petitioners and issues should be examined by appellate authority.
Writ petition disposed of as not entertained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:12299-DB WP No. 1156 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 1156 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VASANTHAKUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/O K HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, POONADAHALLI POST - 571 107. TQ PERIYAPATNA, DIST. MYSURU,
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. MANJULA KAMADOLLI., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SARITHA A L.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
BOTH ARE R/O KOMALAPUR VILLAGE, RAVANDOORU HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK - 571 107 MYSURU DIST.
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No-4 IN No.NCR(57) 269/2018-19 DATED 08.02.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND B) MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT No-1 TO 4 TO EFFECT THE NAME OF BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE FOR 5 ACRES OF LAND IN SY. No-8 SITUATED IN K.HARALAHALLI VILLAGE RAVANDOORU HOBLI, PERIYAPTNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manjula Kamadolli assisted by learned Advocate Ms. Saritha for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Mrs.Niloufer Akbar appearing for the respondents – State of Karnataka and its authorities, upon service of copy of the petition in advance.
said order, the land bearing Sy. No.8/p1 admeasuring 02 Acres and 38 Guntas came to be granted to respondent nos. 5 & 6 for using the land for agricultural purpose.
Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1966 which provides for grant of land subject to fulfillment of certain conditions by the grantee. The appeal is available under Rule 108(D)(6) which of the Karnataka land Revenue Rules, 1966 which provides for the procedure for the Committee under sub-rule (6) of said Rules to appeal against the orders made by the Tahsildar on recommendation made by the Land Grand Committee, and the same lies before the Assistant Commissioner.
5.1 Not only that the nature of challenge in this petition cannot be said to be in the public interest realm. Further, as noticed, the petitioners have the remedy of appeal against the aforementioned order. The appeal is available under sub-Rule (6) of Rule 108-D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. It provides for the procedure of the
Committee. Under sub-Rule (6) of the said Rule, the appeal against the orders made by the Tahsildar on the recommendations of the Land Grant Committee or the
Additional Committee lies before the Assistant
Commissioner.
5.2 When the remedy of appeal is available as above to
the petitioners, this Court is disinclined to entertain the petition.
5.3 Whether the land has to be retained for grazing or to be granted properly to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is a issue which could be better examined by the appellate authority in the appeal.
6.1 The apprehension was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners are third party, the remedy of appeal may not be available to them. On bare reading of sub-Rule (6) of Rule 108-D, it could be seen that the appeal is available against the orders made by the Tahsildar. The appeal is not made confined
NC: 2024:KHC:12299-DB WP No. 1156 of 2024
to be available to the parties to these proceedings only. Therefore, the apprehension on the part of the petitioners that the Petitioners may not be made available to remedy of appeal is not well conceived.
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the land grant order is maintainable in public interest litigation given the availability of statutory remedy.
Whether applicants have locus standi to file a writ petition as third parties when an appeal lies against the impugned order.
Yoganna S/o Chandregouda and others
State of Karnataka
Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru
Tahshildar, Periapatna
Land Grant Committee, Periapatna
K M Swamy and Smt. Latha
N. V. Anjaria
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
