Allowed

Krishnappa @ Ramakrishnappa v. B v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024WP/23424/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought mandamus to direct the Tahasildar to consider his Form No.57 application for regularization of unauthorized cultivation before the Bagar Hukkum Committee. The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Tahasildar to place the representation before the committee, which must inquire and decide within four months.

What did the court decide?

Tahasildar directed to place Form No.57 representation before Bagar Hukkum Committee; committee to hold inquiry under Rule 108D and pass orders within four months.

Krishnappa @ Ramakrishnappa v B Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38187 WP No. 23424 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23424 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KRISHNAPPA @ RAMAKRISHNAPPA V.B,

¶9

S/O KEMPANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, VADDAHALLI VILLAGE, KAIWARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 128.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.

¶16

THE TAHSILDHAR, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHINTAMANI - 563 125.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R3

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:38187 WP No. 23424 of 2024

¶22

TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03/08/2024, AS PER ANNX-B EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3, the Tahasildar, to take cognizance of the petitioner's representation dated 03.08.2024, which is evidenced at Annexure-B, and to regularize the petitioner's unauthorized occupation of the land in question.

¶26

The petitioner claims that he has been cultivating the land unauthorizedly and has submitted an application in Form No.57 before respondent No.3, the Tahasildar, seeking regularization of the unauthorized cultivation in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38187 WP No. 23424 of 2024

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite submitting the said application, respondent No.3 has

¶29

not taken any action to place the representation before the Bagar Hukkum Committee, as required

¶30

under Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1966 Rules’). The petitioner contends that the inaction on the part of respondent No.3 in placing the representation before the committee has caused undue hardship and delay in the regularization of his unauthorized cultivation.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is entitled to have his representation considered by the Bagar Hukkum Committee in accordance with Rule 108D of the 1966 Rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled all necessary conditions and has submitted his application in Form No.57, and therefore, it is

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:38187 WP No. 23424 of 2024

¶34

incumbent upon respondent No.3 to place the same before the committee for its consideration.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶36

(AGA), representing respondents No.1 to 3, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner's application will be duly placed before the Bagar Hukkum Committee, and the committee will conduct an inquiry and pass appropriate orders as per the provisions of Rule 108D of the 1966 Rules.

¶37

Upon hearing the arguments of both parties and after perusing the records, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's grievance is genuine. The petitioner has followed the due process by submitting his application in Form No.57 for the regularization of unauthorized cultivation, and it is the duty of respondent No.3 to place the representation before

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38187 WP No. 23424 of 2024

¶39

the Bagar Hukkum Committee for further action as mandated under Rule 108D of the 1966 Rules.

¶40

The assurance given by the learned AGA on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner's application will be placed before the committee and that an inquiry will be conducted in accordance with law is noted by this Court.

¶41

In light of the submissions made and the assurance provided by the learned AGA, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the writ petition.

¶42

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

ii. Respondent No.3, the Tahasildar, is directed to place the petitioner's representation dated 03.08.2024, submitted in Form No.57, before the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:38187 WP No. 23424 of 2024

¶48

Bagar Hukkum Committee for further course of action in accordance with Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

¶49

iii. Upon such placement of the representation, the Bagar Hukkum Committee shall hold an inquiry as prescribed under Rule 108D of the 1966 Rules, following due process, and pass appropriate orders on the regularization of the petitioner's unauthorized cultivation.

¶50

iv. This entire process, including the conduct of the inquiry and passing of orders by the committee, shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶51

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶52

HDK

¶53

CT: BHK

Krishnappa @ Ramakrishnappa v. B v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnappa @ Ramakrishnappa v. B 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

Azeez Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Narayana Sheety @ G a Narayana Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkataramasheety Alias K S Venkataramana Vs State of Karnataka

Sree Siddaganga Math Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.T.K. Rajagopal, Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka