Disposed

Smt Ningamma v. Assistant Commissioner

An order under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 – which permits cancellation/resumption of grants obtained fraudulently

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/20011/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an Assistant Commissioner's order directing removal of a pathway on their granted land in Survey No.63, passed under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. The court found Rule 108-K (cancellation of grant) was wrongly invoked and that Section 103(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act empowers only the Deputy Commissioner for such obstruction enquiries. The order was

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.09.2021 set aside; Deputy Commissioner directed to enquire under Section 103(2) KLRA and pass orders in accordance with law; parties to appear on 09.12.2024.

Smt Ningamma Vs Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45386 WP No. 20011 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 20011 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NINGAMMA, WIFE OF UDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

¶8

JAYARAMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O UDDAIAH,

¶9

LAKSHMANA @ SANNAIAH, SON OF UDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHITTUVALLI VILLAGE, VASTHARE HOBLI, KELAGUR POST, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. M.C. JAYAKEERTHI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKMAGALUR REVENUE SUB DIVISION, CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:45386 WP No. 20011 of 2021

¶18

TAHASILDAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶19

KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶20

LAKSHMANA, S/O DODDAIAH,

¶21

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶22

YOGISH, S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶23

SYED AKBAR, S/O SYED KALANDAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶24

C.L. SAMRAT, S/O C.K. LOKESHGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶25

GANGAMMA, W/O CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶26

SAMEER, S/O SYED AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶27

SYED KALANDAR, S/O SYED HYDER SAB, ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHITTUVALLI VILLAGE,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:45386 WP No. 20011 of 2021

¶30

KELAGUR POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. PRASANNA B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4, R6 TO R10; R5 - SERVED)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R1 IN CASE NO. BAHU/2021-22 AND ETC.,

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.09.2021,

¶38

passed by respondent No.1 (vide Annexure-N to the writ petition), the present writ petition is filed.

¶39

The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of 1 Acre 18 Guntas of land in Survey No.63 of Chittuvalli Village, Vasthare Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk and there is no pathway in their land. However, certain

¶40

villagers including respondent Nos.3 to 10 made a false

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45386 WP No. 20011 of 2021

¶42

complaint to the authorities that there is a pathway on the land granted to the petitioners and the same has been fenced and the petitioners are not permitting the villagers to use the same.

¶43

Based on the said complaint and after obtaining a report from the Tahsildar, respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and has passed the following order:

¶44

"�ೕಲ�ನ�ಯನು� ಪ�ರಸ��ೆ .

¶45

�ಕ�ಮಗಳ�ರು �ಾಲೂ�ಕು ವ�ಾ !ೆ "ೋಬ$ �ತು ವ$& 'ಾ(ಮದ ಸ . ನಂ .63 ರ+� ,(ೕಮ-.ಂಗಮ� 0ೋಂ ಉದ2ಯ3 ರವ�'ೆ 4ಾ�ೆ5ಾ6ರುವ 1-18 ಎಕ!ೆ 8ೈ: 0-02.8( ಎ!ೆಡುವ!ೆ ಗುಂ<ೆ _)_ �� ೕಣ>ವನು� ರದು2 ಪ?� �ಾವ>ಜ.ಕ ರ�ೆ 'ೆ 0ಾA2�ಸಲು ಆ�ೇ,��ೆ . ಉ$ದ ಪ(-CಾDಗಳ ಜEೕ.ನಲೂ� ಒGH'ೆ �ೕ!ೆ ರ�ೆ 'ಾ6 0ಾA2��ೆ ಎಂದು ನಮೂದು Iಾಡಲುಸೂ��ೆ "ಾಗೂ 1 Jೇಪ(-CಾDಯಮಕ�ಳKಪ�"ಾ!ಾತ�ಕCಾ6 ಭೂE .ೕಡಲು 0ೋ�ರುವ�ದ�ಂದ ಅವ�'ೆ Nೇ!ೆಲೂ� ಜEೕನು ಇಲ�Dದ2!ೆ ಸದ� ರದು2ಪ?ಸುವ �� ೕಣ>0ೆ� ಪ�"ಾರCಾ6 ಸ0ಾ>� ಜEೕ.ನ+� ರ�ೆ 'ೆ ಬಳ0ೆ5ಾದ ಪ(�ೇಶದಷುR ಭೂEಯನು� ಅಗತ3�ದ2+� ಮಂಜೂರು Iಾಡಲು ಸೂಕ ಪ(�ಾ ವJೆಯನು� Iಾನ3 STಾ�U0ಾ�ಗ$'ೆ ಸ+�ಸಲು ತಹ,ೕTಾ2W �ಕ�ಮಗಳ�ರು�ಾಲೂ�ಕುರವ�'ೆ ಸೂ��ಆ�ೇ,��ೆ

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45386 WP No. 20011 of 2021

¶47

ಈ ಆ�ೇಶವನು� ಉಕ Tೇಖನ .ೕ? , ಗಣ:ೕಕರಣ'ೊ$� , DJಾಂಕ : 08-09-2021 ರಂದು ನನ� ಸZ ಮತು [ಹ�JೊಂD'ೆ �ೆ!ೆದ Jಾ35ಾಲಯದ+�\ೂೕ]ಸTಾAತು ."

¶48

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶49

The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on two grounds:

¶50

Firstly on the ground that there is no pathway on their lands and they have not obstructed any existing pathway; and secondly on the ground that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 to pass the impugned order.

¶51

Per contra , the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submit that there exists a pathway on the land granted to the petitioners and that they have illegally fenced and have obstructed the use of the same by the villagers. However, they fairly concede that a wrong provision of law has been invoked by respondent No.1 and it is for the Deputy Commissioner under Section 103(2) of

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:45386 WP No. 20011 of 2021

¶54

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') to initiate the necessary proceedings.

¶55

Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,

¶56

1966 reads as under:

¶57

" 108-K. Cancellation of Grant.- Any grant of land made under this chapter shall be liable to be cancelled and the land resumed by the Assistant Commissioner, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representation or is contrary to these rules:

¶58

Provided that no such cancellation shall be made without giving the grantee an opportunity of being heard."

¶59

Section 103(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

¶60

1964 reads as under:

¶61

" 103(2). Right of way to relinqhished or forfeited land or to land used for purpose of agriculture.- If any right of way to a land used for purposes of agriculture and duly entered in any map or land record maintained under this Act, is wrongfully obstructed or interfered with,

¶62

any person aggrieved thereby may apply to the Deputy Commissioner for removal of such

¶63

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45386 WP No. 20011 of 2021

¶64

obstruction or interference. The Deputy Commissioner may, after a summary enquiry, order the obstruction to be removed, or the interference to be stopped and may for enforcing such order take such action as may be necessary."

¶65

Reading of the aforementioned provisions clearly shows that upon a complaint made by the villagers, an enquiry should have been initiated by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner under Section 103(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and that the order passed by respondent No.1 under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 is erroneous and without jurisdiction. Hence, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The impugned order dated 08.09.2021, passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-N to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

¶68

ii. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is directed to make the necessary enquiry as

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:45386 WP No. 20011 of 2021

¶71

per Section 103(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law;

¶72

iii. Parties shall appear before the concerned jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on 09.12.2024 at 3.00 p. m. without further notice.

¶73

iv. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of.

¶74

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶75

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 CT: BHK

Smt Ningamma v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ningamma v. Assistant Commissioner

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

Smt. Byramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri J v Venkatesh Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. J. v. Venkatesh Vs the Commissioner

Sri N Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

H M Manje Gowda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. Akshitha K a Vs the State of Karnataka