Disposed

Hamya Naik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024WP/21319/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to formally restore granted lands in Malligenahalli Village per Assistant Commissioner's PTCL restoration orders and to consider their representation. The court found a prima facie right established and directed respondents to consider the representation on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' representation dated 01.07.2021 in accordance with law within eight weeks; petitioners may supplement records within four weeks.

Hamya Naik Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5392 WP No. 21319 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.21319 OF 2021 (SC/ST)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

HAMYA NAIK, S/O LATE SEETA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶7

SOMLA NAIK, S/O LATE SEETA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶8

BHADRA NAIK, S/O LATE SEETA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶9

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

DUDYA NAIK, S/O LATE SEETA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶11

SHANTI BAI, W/O LATE SEETA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶12

CHAVALI BAI, W/O LATE CHOKLA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577115.

¶13

CHATRAPATHI NAIK, S/O LATE CHOKLA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577115.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:5392 WP No. 21319 of 2021

¶16

SUSHEELA BAI, D/O LATE CHOKLA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶17

PAPA NAIK, S/O LATE JAATRA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶18

VENKATESHA NAIK, S/O LATE LOKYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶19

CHANDRI BAI, W/O LATE TAVARYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶20

BHOJYA NAIK, S/O LATE TAVARYA NAIK, MAJOR, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶21

DEVA NAIK, S/O LATE TAVARYA NAIK, MAJOR, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶22

PEEKLI BAI, W/O LATE SAAMYA NAIK, MAJOR, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶23

SHANTI BAI, D/O LATE SAAMYA NAIK, MAJOR, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶24

LOKESH NAIK, S/O LATE SAAMYA NAIK, MAJOR, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:5392 WP No. 21319 of 2021

¶27

GOURI BAI, W/O LATE EERA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶28

LALI BAI, W/O LATE NANYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶29

CHAYI BAI, W/O LATE SHIVANAIK, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶30

GANESH, S/O LATE LOKYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶31

GANGI BAI, W/O LATE RAMA NAIK MAJOR, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶32

PUJARI SHIVANAIK, S/O LATE LOKYA NAIK, MAJOR, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶33

SHANKAR NAIK, S/O LATE LACCHA NAIK, MAJOR, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶34

REP. BY SENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER.

¶35

THIMMA NAIK, S/O LATE MEGHYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI, SHIMOGA - 577 115.

¶36

…PETITIONERS

¶37

[BY MISS SAKSHI M. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VINAYAKA B. VISHNU BATTA, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:5392 WP No. 21319 of 2021

¶40

AND:

¶41

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶42

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGGA - 577 115.

¶43

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 115.

¶44

TAHSILDAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA 577115.

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI RAHUL CARIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1- R4)

¶47

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO FORMALLY RESTORE THE LAND MEASURING 3.00 ACRES EACH IN SY.NO.126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139 AND 140 OF MALLIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIMOGA TALUK IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN PROCEEDING NO.SC/ST 9/2010-11 AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.09.2005 (ANNEXURE-C, D, E, F) AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.07.2021 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶48

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

¶49

ORDER

¶50

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶51

(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to formally restore the land measuring 3.00 acres each in Sy.no.126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139 and 140 of Malligenahalli Village, Shimoga Taluk in favour of the petitioners as per the Order of the Deputy Commissioner in proceeding no.SC/ST 9/2010-11 and the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:5392 WP No. 21319 of 2021

¶54

Assistant Commissioner passed in proceeding no.PTCL CR 4(A)/2004-05 and no.PTCL CR.4(D)/2004-05 dated 23.09.2005 (Annexures-C, D, E, F);

¶55

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.07.2021 (Annexure-A) and etc.

¶56

Miss Sakshi M. Krishnappa, learned counsel appearing for Sri Vinayaka B. Vishnu Batta, advocate for petitioners submitted that land bearing Sy.no.84 of Malligenahalli Village, Shimoga Taluk was granted to several

¶57

persons as follows:

¶58

Sl.no.	Name of Grantee	Village	Sy.nos.	Extent
1.	Chokla Naika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.131	3 Acres
2.	Lachamanaika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.132	3 Acres
3.	Jathranaika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.133	3 Acres
4.	Ramanaika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.137	3 Acres
5.	Julyanaika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.138	3 Acres
6.	Lachmanaika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.139	3 Acres
7.	Tyavranaika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.140	3 Acres
8.	Seethanaika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.126	3 Acres
9.	Choklanaik	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.127	3 Acres
10.	Hemlanaika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.128	3 Acres
11.	Laksharinaika	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.129	3 Acres
12.	Smt.Sakribai Dead by LRs	Malligenahalli	Old Sy.no.84 New Sy.no.130	3 Acres

¶59

It was submitted that taking advantage of social

¶60

and economic status, certain persons got sale deeds executed illegally in violation of order of grants in year 1972. Thereafter,

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:5392 WP No. 21319 of 2021

¶63

purchasers in-turn sold said lands to Teena W/o Kiran Kumar and to Smt.Ganga on 27.12.2004, 30.12.2004 and 30.12.2004 respectively. It was submitted that after coming into force of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ' PTCL Act '), provision was made for grantees or their legal representative to file application for restoration of land. In view of same, proceedings for restoration were registered bearing no.PTCL CR.4(A)/2004-05 and PTCL CR.4(D)/2004-05.

¶64

It was submitted that after issuing notice to purchasers and on perusal of available records, on 23.09.2005 Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga passed orders at Annexures-C and D for restoration of lands to grantees/legal representatives with observation that applicants were required to establish that they are either grantees or their legal representatives to have lands restored.

¶65

It was submitted that against said order, appeal was preferred as per Annexures-E and F, but unsuccessfully. Thereafter, petitioners herein filed representation as per Annexure-A on 07.07.2021. Alleging that same had remained without consideration despite lapse of more than reasonable

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:5392 WP No. 21319 of 2021

¶68

time, petitioners are before this Court seeking for writ of mandamus.

¶69

On other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents submitted that petitioners would be entitled for seeking such direction only if orders passed by authorities had attained finality and there were no other proceedings pending. It was submitted that in case, representation had not been considered even in absence of any pending proceedings, same would be considered in accordance with law within reasonable time.

¶70

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶71

record.

¶72

From above submission and since petitioners are seeking for writ of mandamus and fact that petitioners herein had filed applications for restoration of lands before Assistant Commissioner, whereupon order for restoration were passed and said order as per petitioners had attained finality with dismissal of appeal by Deputy Commissioner. Prima-facie right of petitioners to seek mandamus for consideration of their representation filed after dismissal of appeal by Deputy Commissioner for restoration of possession, would appear to

¶73

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:5392 WP No. 21319 of 2021

¶75

have been established. Failure to consider representation, despite lapse of more than reasonable time by respondents would amount to demand made and deemed refusal.

¶76

Thus, ingredients for issuance of writ of mandamus having been established without adjudicating petitioners claim in representation on merits, writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to consider petitioners' representation at Annexure-A in accordance with law.

¶77

For proper consideration, petitioners are at liberty to supplement representation at Annexure-A with appropriate records/documents within an outer limit of four weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶78

Consideration by respondents shall be within eight weeks from date of receipt of supplemental documents/records from petitioners.

¶79

Needless to state that issuance of direction to consider representation should not be considered as a positive direction to grant relief sought for in representation, but only to consider it on its own merits, in accordance with law, but within time limit indicated.

¶80

SD/JUDGE

¶81

GRD

Hamya Naik v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamya Naik 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

Mr Hadagali Santhosh Kumara Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Gnanodaya School of Nursing Vs Karnataka State Diploma in Nursing Examination Board

Sri Nishanth S Jagdish Vs Visveswaraya Technological University

Shree Devi Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Sadhu Vaswani Mission Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Care India (Ngo) Vs Principal Secretary