Allowed

Sri G R Sridhar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/16981/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought re-grant of a Shanbhogue Inamthi agricultural land via Form No.1A application to the Tahasildar. Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Deputy Commissioner to notify interested parties, club rival applications, hear all parties and decide re-grant claims in accordance with law within six months.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus granted: Deputy Commissioner to issue notices, club rival re-grant applications, decide them lawfully within six months of receipt from the Tahasildar.

Sri G R Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38857 WP No. 16981 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 16981 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. G.R. SRIDHAR, S/O LATE G. RAMACHANDRA RAOM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT MANDIKAL VILLAGE, DUGGASANDRA HOBLI, MULABAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

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

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR, MULABAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38857 WP No. 16981 of 2024

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE R3 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO. 1A FOR RE-GRANT OF LAND DATED 16.05.22 IN RESPECT BEARING SY.NO. 19 MEASURING 4 ACRES 17 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT NACHAGUNDLAHALLI VILLAGE, DUGGASANDRA HOBLI, MULABAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE WP AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶21

The captioned petition is filed seeking mandamus against respondent No.3 to consider the application submitted by the petitioner in Form No.1A in respect of land bearing Sy.No.19 measuring 4 acres 17 guntas, situated at Nachagundlahalli village, Duggasandar Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District, vide Annexure-A.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:38857 WP No. 16981 of 2024

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶25

learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶26

The subject matter of the petition land is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 19, measuring 4 acres 17 guntas, situated at Nachagundlahalli village, Duggasandar Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District. The petitioner contends that the petition land is a 'Shanbhogue Inamthi land' and the same is enjoyed since the time of petitioner's ancestors. The petitioner contends that his father, during his lifetime, failed to seek re-grant of the petition land and in view of an extension to seek re-grant, the petitioner claims that he has submitted an application on 16.05.2022 to respondent No.3/Tahasildar seeking re-grant of the land in question. Citing column 9 of RTC, evidenced at Annexure-C to C22, the petitioner contends that the RTC clearly reflects that the petition land is a Shanbhogue Inamthi land. The petitioner also asserts that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the property in question.

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38857 WP No. 16981 of 2024

¶28

Learned AGA requests this Court not to set a time line to decide the petitioner's claim as there are several rival claims. However, the endorsement, which is now sought to be placed on record by the learned AGA, clearly reveals that there is no rival claim seeking regrant, but there are some disputed mutation proceedings. If the State has come up with a circular/notification extending time to seek re-grant and if such applications are received by the competent authority, the concerned authority is obligated to decide the claim under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Office's Abolition Act, 1961. On the premises that there are several rival claims, the authority cannot squat over the application indefinitely. Respondent No.3/Tahasildar, who is the authority under the Act, is required to forthwith refer these applications to respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner for further course of action. If there are rival claims, notices shall be issued to interested parties and all applications needs to be clubbed, if any, and the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:38857 WP No. 16981 of 2024

¶31

same have to be decided within a time frame. For the

¶32

reasons stated supra, this Court passes the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶35

ii. Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of applications pertaining to petition land, shall issue notice to all interested parties, and if there are more than one application filed seeking re-grant, all the applications shall be clubbed, and after hearing all the interested parties, shall decide the application in accordance with law;

¶36

iii. Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner shall decide the applications within six months from the date of receipt of the application from respondent No.3/Tahasildar.

¶37

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶38

HDK

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK

Sri G R Sridhar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G R Sridhar 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

Mrs Uma Hiremath W/O Air Commodore G L Hiremath Vs the Air Marshall

Sri C Venkata Swamy Vs Sri H N Shivanna

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs Munivenkatappa

Sri. Rajgopal. B. M. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bore Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Ganesh Vs the Assistant Commissioner