Partly allowed

Shashikala v. the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2024WP/20331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka issued an order directing a local planning authority to verify construction approvals for alleged agricultural land misuse. It further directed the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Section 96 of the KLR Act and required the authority to respond within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider representation and verify approvals; petitioner permitted to file representation with Deputy Commissioner under Section 96 KLR Act; second respondent to inform p

Shashikala Vs the Tahsildar — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44736 WP No. 20331 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20331 OF 2024 (LB-UC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHASHIKALA

¶9

W/O B R NAGARAJ 59 YEARS R/AT NO 2 BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE, AND POST HEBBALA HOBLI, K R NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A..,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR KUSHALNAGAR TALUK KUSHALNAGAR

¶15

KODAGU DISTRICT 571234

¶16

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUDIGE GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDIGE KODAGU DISTRICT 571234

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1;

¶18

SRI. ACHAPPA P.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER ANNEXURE-A THE REPRESENTATION

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:44736 WP No. 20331 of 2024

¶22

DATED 11.1.2022 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner asserts that she is a joint owner of the land measuring 8.10 acres in Sy.No.2/34-P1 of Sheraholalu Village, Kushalnagar Hobli and Taluk, Kodagu District. The petitioner has filed a representation with the respondents complaining that certain Sri. Sampathkumar and Sri. Shailesh Chandra are using agricultural property for commercial purposes. The petitioner complains that the respondents have not taken any action on the representation, and contends that therefore, a Writ of Mandamus must ensue.

¶26

If agricultural land is put to any other use without diversion as is contemplated under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 [for

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:44736 WP No. 20331 of 2024

¶29

short, ' the KLR Act' ], the Deputy Commissioner must act as contemplated under Section 96 thereof. Therefore, the petitioner's representation ought to have been to the Deputy Commissioner. Further, the second respondent [the Planning Authority], which would be the Local Authority, will also have to ensure that the construction is with its approval.

¶30

Sri. Rahul Cariappa, a learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent, and Sri. Achappa P. B., a learned standing counsel who is permitted to appear for the second respondent, are heard in the light of the afore and the petition stands disposed of by the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

a. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation to ascertain whether the construction is with due approval and if it is not with

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:44736 WP No. 20331 of 2024

¶35

due approval, to take such action as would be permissible in law.

¶36

b. In addition, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation with the

¶37

jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, who shall consider taking action as is contemplated under Section 96 of the KLR Act.

¶38

c. The second respondent shall inform the petitioner about the consideration of the representation as now directed within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶39

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶40

Shashikala v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala v. the Tahsildar

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

Ramachandraiah M Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

V Soma Shekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. H.N. Kalpana Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Umadevi. M Vs the State of Karnataka

Iffath Wasim Vs the Commissioner

Sri Gopalachar K R Vs State of Karnataka