Disposed

Smt. Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/18907/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition sought quashing of land-grabbing proceedings under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act pending the petitioner's forest rights claim. The Court directed the Committee to decide the Rule 11(1)(a) application in eight weeks and suspended the Special Court proceedings until then.

What did the court decide?

Committee directed to dispose of Rule 11(1)(a) application in eight weeks with compliance report; Special Court proceedings in LGC(G) No.371/2023 suspended until the claim is decided.

Smt. Parvathamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45370-DB WP No. 18907 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 18907 OF 2024 (KLGP)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. PARVATHAMMA, WIFE OF MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENTS OF CHATNALLI VILLAGE, NYAMTHI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 225.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER SHANKARA RANGE, ALKOLA, SHIVAMOGGA TALLUK: DISTIRCT 577 225.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M RAJKUMAR., AGA)

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45370-DB WP No. 18907 of 2024

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 17/10/2023, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.LGC(G) NO.371/2023 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT, AT BENGALURU, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN LGC (G) NO.371/2023, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION-4 AND 5 OF THE KARNATAKA PROHIBITION OF LAND GRABBING ACT, 2011 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶25

The short grievance of the Petitioner against whom

¶26

the proceedings under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 have been taken up, is as to nonconsideration of his claim filed under Rule 11(1)(a) of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently

¶28

argues that when her Application for regularization of 04A-

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45370-DB WP No. 18907 of 2024

¶30

20G of land in question is pending, the proceedings before the Karnataka Prohibition of Land Grabbing Special Court, Bengaluru, cannot go on.

¶31

Learned AGA on request appearing for the Respondents submits that the proceedings under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and the proceedings under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007 are different from each other and one cannot interdict the other. This submission he makes after noting the undertaking of learned counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner’s claim before the Committee is confined to 04A20G of the subject land, and rest of the land belongs to the Forest Departwment, over which she has no claims or whatsoever.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the subject 2011 Rules provide certain rights to the members

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45370-DB WP No. 18907 of 2024

¶34

of Scheduled Tribe and other traditional forest dwellers

¶35

and in terms of that, the Petitioner has made an application under Rule 11(1)(a). The said Application is stated to be pending consideration on the file of newly added Respondent No.3 – Committee. If the Application is allowed, the question of proceedings now going on at the hands of Land Grabbing Prevention Court have to come to an end. Therefore, prosecuting the proceedings before the said Court need to be stalled till after Committee takes up the claim of the Petitioner under 2007 Rules and decides it

¶36

in accordance with law. An argument to the contrary would offend the sense of justice and therefore, cannot be countenanced.

¶37

In the above circumstances, this Petition is disposed off with the following directions:

¶38

a) The third Respondent – Committee is directed to consider & dispose off Petitioner’s Application filed under Rule 11(1)(a) of 2007 Rules within an outer limit of eight weeks and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court. The Petitioner shall fully cooperate with the proceedings before

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45370-DB WP No. 18907 of 2024

¶40

the Committee without seeking any adjournment on any ground whatsoever. All contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open.

¶41

b) The Karnataka Prohibition of Land Grabbing Special Court, Bengaluru is requested to keep its proceedings in Case No.LGC (G): 371/2023 under suspension and deferment till after the claim of Petitioner as mentioned in the preceding paragraph is heard & decided.

¶42

No costs.

¶43

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶45

Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Smt. Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Parvathamma v. 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

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Smt Pooja P Nayak

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Sri. Sikandra Babu Martujasab Mulimani

Manjunath I Pujar S/O Shri Ishwarappa Pujar Vs Union of India

Sri Ravikumar G P Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka by Vs Ms. Latha H N

Sri K K Chandrakanth Vs the State of Karnataka