Disposed

Sri Ravi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2024WP/23409/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions for a Grant Certificate and katha for an alternative site in lieu of a site granted to their mother. Based on the Municipal Council's communication allotting alternative site No.165, the Court disposed of the petition declaring entitlement and directing issuance of Hakku-Patra within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners declared entitled to Site No.165 (30x30 ft) in Jyothinagara Ashraya Layout; Tahsildar to issue Hakku-Patra within four months of representation; Council to consider revenue entry change th

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48333 WP No. 23409 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23409 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI RAVI S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH AND NAGARATHNAMMA J.K. AGED 37 YEARS, R/O JYOTHINAGAR, KALYA GATE, MAGADI TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN-562120.

¶7

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SMT.GAYATHRI W/O G.K.RAJU D/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH AND NAGARATHNAMMA J.K. AGED 32 YEARS, R/O GATTIPURA, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN-562120.

¶9

(BY SRI. RAMESH K R.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:48333 WP No. 23409 of 2022

¶15

THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VISWESHWARAIAH TOWERS, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGLAURU-560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562 159.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MAGADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB., AAG A/W

¶21

SMT. CHANDINI S, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE R3 TO 5 TO ISSUE GRANT CERTIFICATE RELATING TO SITE NO.148 MEASURING 25 X 30 FT . OR RELATING TO ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE SITE SITUATED AT JYOTHINAGAR EXTENSION, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND TO EFFECT THE KATHA OF SUCH SITE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AS AN

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:48333 WP No. 23409 of 2022

¶25

ALTERNATIVE SITE IN LIEU OF SITE NO.147 GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS MOTHER - SMT.J K NAGARATHNAMMA.

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have sought for directions to the Director of Municipal Administration, Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, the Magadi Town Municipal Council and the jurisdictional Tahsildar to issue Grant Certificate for the site No.148 measuring 25 feet x 30 feet or for any other alternative site in Jyothinagara Extension, Magadi Town, Ramanagara District and to give effect Katha in favour of the petitioners consequent to such Grant Certificate. The petitioners have sought these directions as an alternative to the site in No.147 granted in favour of their mother, Smt. J K Nagarathnamma.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:48333 WP No. 23409 of 2022

¶31

Sri K R Ramesh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Reuben Jacob, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and its Officers and Sri A V Gangadharappa, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, were heard by this Court on 22.10.2024 in the light of the Report that the learned Additional Advocate General proposed to file. This Report is by the Committee constituted by this Court vide Order dated 21.11.2023. On perusal of the Report, this Court had accepted the request of the learned Additional Advocate General to discard the Report and grant some reasonable time to secure instructions on the petitioners' claim for alternative site as legal representatives of Smt. J K Nagarathnamma.

¶32

Sri Reuben Jacob has now placed on record a copy of the Communication dated 25.11.2024 addressed by the Chief Officer, Magadi Town Municipal Council to the Director of Municipal

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:48333 WP No. 23409 of 2022

¶35

Administration, Bengaluru. This Communication indicates that the Council has decided to allot site No.165 [ Katha No.5018/165/5463 ] measuring 30 feet x 30 feet to the petitioners as an alternative site. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that in terms of this Communication, the petitioners will be issued with Hakku - Patra for the subject site and the needful would be done within a period of three [3] months if the petitioners file a representation along with the certified copy of this order with the jurisdictional Tahsildar. When queried, the learned Additional Advocate General further submits that once Hakku - Patra is issued, the petitioners can approach the Council for the revenue entries. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

[a] The petition stands disposed of declaring that the petitioners will be entitled to site No.165 [ Katha No.5018/165/5463 ] measuring 30 feet x 30 feet in

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:48333 WP No. 23409 of 2022

¶40

Jyothinagara Ashraya Layout, Magadi and reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a representation along with the certified copy of this order with the jurisdictional Tahsildar for Hakku - Patra.

¶41

[b] The petitioners will be at liberty to file this representation and a certified copy within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶42

[c] The jurisdictional Tahsildar is called upon

¶43

to take all measures as would be necessary to ensure Hakku - Patra is issued for the subject property within a period of four [4] months from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶44

[d] It is needless to observe that with the issuance of Hakku - Patra, the fourth

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:48333 WP No. 23409 of 2022

¶47

respondent shall consider the request for

¶48

change of revenue entries.

¶49

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶50

AN/-

Sri Ravi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravi 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

Sri B v Mohana Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Nikhil Ubhayakar Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Gopalan Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Samriddhi Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Bbmp

M.M.Anandaram Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Mr N Harish Vs the State of Karnataka