Remanded

Smt Hanumakka v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024WP/23895/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging an order setting aside revenue entries under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order due to inordinate delay and lack of proper notice, remanded the matter for fresh consideration after a hearing, and granted the petitioner temporary possession.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration with hearing; provisional possession granted and alienation prohibited.

Smt Hanumakka Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42570 WP No. 23895 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 23895 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. HANUMAKKA, WIFE OF ANJINAPPA , AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLIGERE VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA , BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 204

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NATARAJA B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVNEUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 562 110.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, DODDBELAVANGALA - 561 204.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42570 WP No. 23895 of 2024

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2-DC DATED 10.05.2022 IN R.P.NO.161/2019 AT ANNEXURE-F AND SAME SHALL NOT EFFECT THE CLAIM AND RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER IN PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that, 3 acres 8 guntas of land in Sy.No.112 of Koligere Village, Doddabelavangala Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District was granted in her favour in the year 1971-72. However, respondent No.2 after an unreasonable delay of nearly 45 years initiated suo-moto proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and without proper notice to the petitioner has passed the impugned order, wherein, revenue entries reflecting the name of the petitioner in respect of the land concerned has been set aside on the allegation that it is not supported by any order of mutation or order of grant.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42570 WP No. 23895 of 2024

¶25

Petitioner contends that if reasonable opportunity is given, she would produce all the relevant documents to

¶26

show that the grant made in her favour is genuine.

¶27

Learned AGA submits that the petitioner appeared in the proceedings, but did not effectively participate in the proceedings which resulted in passing of the impugned order. However, she does not dispute the fact that the revenue entries stood in the name of petitioner from a long time in respect of the land concerned.

¶28

Admittedly, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner

¶29

has initiated the proceedings against the land of the petitioner after an inordinate delay. Further, petitioner submits that if a reasonable opportunity is given, then in that event, petitioner would demonstrate that it is a genuine grant. It is also not in dispute that she has been in possession of the property from a very long time.

¶30

Under the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that given peculiar facts and circumstances of

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:42570 WP No. 23895 of 2024

¶33

the case, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration in accordance with law, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make necessary representation along with documents. Hence, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The impugned order dated 10.05.2022 in R.P.No.161/2019 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-F to the writ petition, is hereby set aside;

¶36

ii) The matter is remanded back to respondent

¶37

No.2 to consider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;

¶38

iii) The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 on 26.11.2024 at 3.00 p.m. without further notice;

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:42570 WP No. 23895 of 2024

¶41

iv) The petitioner is given an opportunity to file necessary objections before respondent

¶42

No.2;

¶43

v) Till a decision is taken by respondent No.2 pursuant to this order, petitioner shall not be dispossessed of the property concerned;

¶44

vi) Further, petitioner is also prohibited from alienating the property concerned till a decision is taken by respondent No.2;

¶45

vii) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

¶46

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶47

PGG

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Smt Hanumakka v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Hanumakka 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

C. Krishniah Chetty and C0. Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrashekar P Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Aarthi B K Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Arasamma Vs State of Karnataka

Shekhare Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Preethi K Vs State of Karnataka