Allowed

Sri.Shankar S/O. Kalagouda Astekar v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2024WP/146150/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order taking possession of their land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act via a mahazar by a Revenue Inspector. Relying on precedent that only the competent authority may take possession, the Court quashed the order and endorsement and directed return of possession.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued; order dated 31.07.1992 (Annexure-C) and endorsement dated 21.01.2010 (Annexure-G) quashed; possession to be returned to petitioners within thirty days.

Sri.Shankar S/O. Kalagouda Astekar Vs the Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3732 WP No. 146150 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 146150 OF 2020 (KLR-CON)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SHANKAR S/O. KALAGONDA ASTEKAR, AGE : 35 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶8

SRI. MARUTI S/O. KALAGONDA ASTEKAR, DIED R/P BY HIS LRS

¶9

2(a) SMT. MALLAWWA W/O. MARUTI ASTEKAR, AGE : 54 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶10

2(b) SMT. NEETA W/O. SANJAY PATIL, AGE : 36 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶11

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2024.02.20 16:30:21 +0530

¶12

2(c) SRI. NILESH S/O. MARUTI ASTEKAR, AGE : 32 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶13

2(d) SMT. POOJA W/O. SURESH KALLANNAVAR, AGE : 30 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶14

SRI. SIDRAI S/O. GANGARAM ASTEKAR, AGE : 60 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶15

SRI. MAHADEV S/O. GANGARAM ASTEKAR DIED R/P BY HIS LRS.

¶16

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3732 WP No. 146150 of 2020

¶17

4(a) SMT. MANJULA W/O. MAHADEV ASTEKAR, AGE : 44 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶18

4(b) SRI. SANDEEP S/O. MAHADEV ASTEKAR, AGE : 23 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶19

4(c) SRI. KULADEEP S/O. MAHADEV ASTEKAR, AGE : 21 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶20

4(d) SMT. PARAVATI W/O. GANGARAM ASTEKAR, AGE : 75 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶21

SRI. PARASHARAM S/O.GANGARAM ASTEKAR, AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶22

SMT. LAXMI W/O.PEERAJI PATIL AGE : 80 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶23

SMT. KALLUBAI W/O.BHARMA ASTEKAR, AGE : 68 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDA, BANGALORE-01.

¶28

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3732 WP No. 146150 of 2020

¶31

VIDANSOUDA, BANGALORE-01.

¶32

THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶33

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶34

SMT. SUMITRA @ SAVITRI W/O. ANANT ASTEKAR, AGE : 70 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : KANGRALI.B.K. TQ & DIST : BELAGAVI-590010.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR R1-R4 R5-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORRI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.07.1992 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 BEARING NO.ULCDSR NO.1442 i.e. ANNEXURE-C AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 21/01/2010/ULC/D/ SR NO.1442 i.e. ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4. FURTHER DIRECTED TO RECONSIDER ANNEXURE “F”.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶41

A) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 31.07.1992 passed by the Respondent No.4 bearing no.ULCDSR No.1442 i.e. Annexure-C and endorsement dated 21/01/2010 /ULC/D/SR No. 1442 i.e. AnnexureG issued by the Respondent No.4. Further directed to reconsider Annexure “F”.

¶42

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3732 WP No. 146150 of 2020

¶43

A1) declare that the very initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the ULC Act vitiated by operation of law, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶44

B) grant such other relief/s that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶45

The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order date 31.07.1992 has been passed by respondent No.4 and the consequential endorsement at Annexure-G has been issued on the Mahazar conducted by a Revenue Inspector taking possession of the property of the petitioners under t he Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short “the Act”) is not proper or autorised.

¶46

This Hon’ble Court in Mallikarjun S/o. Late Shankar Niralagi v. State of Karnataka and another¹ and several other decisions has categorically come to a conclusion that it is only the competent authority, who could take possession of the property and the competent authority cannot delegate his powers of taking possession. The revenue inspector not being the competent authority, the mahazar cannot be a basis for issuance of the

¶47

1 2009 (2) KLJ 284

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3732 WP No. 146150 of 2020

¶49

impugned endorsement. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶52

ii) A certiorari is issued, the order dated 31.07.1992 passed by respondent No.4 bearing ULCDSR No.1442 i.e. Annexure-C is quashed. Consequently, the endorsement dated 21.01.2010 at Annexure-G is quashed.

¶53

iii) In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to return the possession to the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

Sri.Shankar S/O. Kalagouda Astekar v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Shankar S/O. Kalagouda Astekar v. the Chief Secretary

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

Hazarth Allauddin Sha Khadri Dargah Vs the Karntaka State Board of Auqaf

Shaik Sadiq Vali Son of Abdul Huq Vs M/S Margadarshi Chits (Kar) Private Limited

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Basaveshwara Rice Industries Vs the Managing Director

Mohammed Rafiq S/O Fakirsab Nadaf Vs Yasmin Banu W/O Mohammed Rafiq Nadaf

Mohammed Rafiq S/O Fakirsab Nadaf Vs Yasmin Banu W/Io Mohammed Rafiq Nadaf