Allowed

Sri M Ramappa, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024WP/14419/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Tahasildar's endorsement rejecting Form No.53 regularization applications on the ground that the lands fell within 18 km of Bengaluru city. Following a co-ordinate bench judgment in W.P.No.237/2022, the court held the relevant date is that of the application (1998-99) and quashed the endorsement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement quashed; Tahsildar to place application before Bagar Hukkum Committee for enquiry under Rule 108D(1) within six months.

Sri M Ramappa, Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39798 WP No. 14419 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 14419 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M. RAMAPPA,

¶8

SON OF MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIDAGATTA VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE - 562 114.

¶9

BATHYAPPA,

¶10

SON OF DODDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIDAGATTA VILLAGE,

¶11

JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE - 562 114.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK V, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF LAND, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOSAKOTE - 562 114.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39798 WP No. 14419 of 2024

¶19

THE THASILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE - 562 114.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. V.G. BHANU PRAKASH, AAG A/W SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. LND.RCR.268/2020-21 DATED 24.03.24 PASSED BY THE R3 - HASILDAR (ANNEXURE-C) AND PASS SUCH ORDERS SO FAR PETITIONERS CONCERN.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-C, wherein the petitioners' application seeking regularization of unauthorized occupancy is not entertained on the premise that the lands, which are subject matter of the application seeking regularization, are within the distance of 18 k.m. from Bengaluru city; consequently, an endorsement is issued by Tahasildar that the petitioners' application cannot be considered. The said endorsement is under challenge.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39798 WP No. 14419 of 2024

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General for the

¶28

respondents/State. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench on the issue that arises for consideration.

¶29

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the question of examining as to whether the application seeking regularization of a land was within the radius of 18 k.m. and what would be the relevant date to examine the radius of 18 k.m. is dealt and

¶30

given a quietus by the co-ordinate bench in the judgment rendered in W.P.No.237/2022. Paragraph No.6 of the judgment would clinch the entire controversy. The same is extracted, which reads as under:

¶31

"6. For that purpose, the writ petition is partly allowed while setting aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and all other earlier orders passed by the Tahsildar. The matter stands remanded to the Tahsildar, Hosakote with a specific direction that he shall decide as to what was the distance between the land in question and the boundary of then

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39798 WP No. 14419 of 2024

¶33

Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as it was as on the date of application i.e., in the year 1998. If it is clear that the land in question was not within the prohibited distance having regard to the boundaries of then Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, then the Tahsildar shall immediately proceed to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of the petitioners. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to observe that the boundary shall be measured in the presence of petitioners."

¶34

On reading the observations made by the coordinate bench while rejecting the stand taken by the concerned authority, this Court is of the view that while examining the radius of 18 k.m, what needs to be looked into is the date of application. In the present case, the petitioners have tendered an application in Form No.53 seeking regularization in the year 1998-1999. The endorsement clearly gives an indication that the distance of 18 k.m. from the city of Bengaluru is determined as of 2015. Therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench resolving the present controversy, this Court is of the view that the endorsement issued by

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39798 WP No. 14419 of 2024

¶36

respondent No.3/Tahasildar vide Annexure-C is not

¶37

sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶38

For the forgoing reasons, this Court passes the

¶39

following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶42

ii. The impugned endorsement is hereby quashed and respondent No.3/Tahasildar is hereby directed to place the application before the Bagar Hukkum Committee;

¶43

iii. The Committee, shall proceed to hold an enquiry as contemplated under 108D(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Grant Rules, 1966;

¶44

iv. The Committee shall accomplish the enquiry as contemplated under 1966 rules within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶45

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶46

HDK

Sri M Ramappa, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Ramappa, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishnappa Vs Sri Narasimhaiah S/O Late Munishamappa

Sri. Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anne Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Dhanalakshmi S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivasa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Ismail Vs State of Karnataka