Allowed

Ashok Madivala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/24506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to grant interim order in an appeal against the Tahasildar's refusal to issue Saguvali Chit for land occupied since 1959. The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order, allowed interim relief, and directed non-dispossession pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Order of Appellate Tribunal quashed; I.A.No.1 allowed; Tahasildar directed not to dispossess petitioner pending Appeal No.203/2022; Tribunal to decide within three months.

Ashok Madivala Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:36297 WP No. 24506 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.24506 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ASHOK MADIVALA S/O MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PAHANUR HOUSE NITTADE VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K DISTRICT - 574 214

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.K SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 01

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE

¶16

D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201

¶17

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:36297 WP No. 24506 of 2024

¶20

PUTTUR

¶21

D K DISTRICT - 574 201

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR BELTHANGADI TALUK D K DISTRICT - 574 214

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ON I.A.NO.1 IN APPEAL NO.203/22 FILED AS ANNX-A AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2024 IN NO.IRR 8/2010-11 PASSED BY THE R-4 FILED AS ANNX-B AND PASS SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDERS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶29

2. The petitioner aggrieved by non-granting of interim order by the Appellate Tribunal in the proceedings arisen out of

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:36297 WP No. 24506 of 2024

¶32

108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, wherein the petitioner is asserting that he is in possession of unauthorized possession since 1959 has filed the captioned writ petition.

¶33

3. Learned AGA, on instructions, vehemently argued and objected in granting any indulgence by this Court. Learned AGA submits that the Authorities pursuant to the rejection of the petitioner’s application filed in Form No.53 seeking regularization has taken possession yesterday and therefore, he would request this Court not to grant any indulgence.

¶34

4. From the records, more particularly, the order passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, reveals that there are around 20 coconut trees aged around 30 years, 700 Arecanut Trees aged around 12 years and around 500 Arecanut Trees aged around 4 years. The order of Assistant Commissioner further reflects that the petitioner has grown paddy in the portion of the land in question.

¶35

5. If all these significant details are looked into, the fact that Bagar Hukum Committee has recommended to regularize petitioner’s unauthorized occupation, Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar order declining to issue Saguvali Chit, is under

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36297 WP No. 24506 of 2024

¶37

challenge. Both the Authorities namely respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner have declined to interfere with the order of the Tahasildar declining to issue Saguvali Chit. The order of respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner reflects the petitioner's occupation and improvements made in the land in question by the petitioner.

¶38

6. The Appellate Tribunal has not adverted to the materials while considering the interim order. Though the Appellate Tribunal takes cognizance of the recommendation made by the Committee, however, has declined to grant interim order on the premise that the Tribunal is not a Special Court to examine whether action of the petitioner in laying a claim over the petition land amounts to land grabbing. Primafacie , the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is misconceived.

¶39

7. The petitioner’s rights are governed under 108D of 1966 Rules. The Appellate Tribunal proceeds on an assumption that it cannot examine the dispute relating to the land grabbing

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36297 WP No. 24506 of 2024

¶41

and it is a Special Court, which is the competent to decide the issue relating to the land grabbing.

¶42

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the action initiated by respondents – State before the Special Court on the premise that the petitioner is guilty of land grabbing is dealt by this Court in W.P.No.29281/2018 and the proceedings initiated under the Land Grabbing Act are quashed. The Appellate Tribunal appears to have misconstrued and misinterpreted the order and on this sole count, the Appellate Tribunal has declined to grant interim order.

¶43

9. In the light of these significant details, this Court is of the view that the order under challenge is not sustainable. The Appellate Tribunal, while considering the interim order, has to look into prima-facie materials and also has to bear in mind the rights over immovable properties. By declining to grant interim order, the appeal itself will be rendered infructuous. These crucial issues are ignored by the Appellate Tribunal by declining to grant interim order. By declining interim order, the petitioner is seriously prejudiced and right of appeal is also virtually taken away as the same has led to precipitative action

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:36297 WP No. 24506 of 2024

¶46

undertaken by respondents – State. The respondents – State has swiftly acted in the case on hand and claims possession is taken over.

¶47

10. The materials on record reveals that there are more

¶48

than 1000 trees grown by the petitioner since 1959 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner also depicts that the petitioner has grown paddy in the petition land. This is a fit case, where petitioner is entitled for some protection pending consideration. The Appellate Tribunal is hereby directed to decide the case at the earliest.

¶49

11. Both the parties are hereby directed to

¶50

co-operate and submit their rival claims and the written arguments to enable the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.

¶51

12. With these observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order under challenge is hereby quashed.

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:36297 WP No. 24506 of 2024

¶55

¶56

(iii) The application filed in I.A.No.1 is hereby allowed. Respondent No.4Tahasildar is hereby directed not to dispossess the petitioner pending consideration of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶57

(iv) The action of respondent No.4 – Tahasildar will be subject to out come of the Appeal No.203/2022.

¶58

(v) The Appellate Tribunal shall decide the case within three months.

¶59

(vi) Any observations made by this Court shall not influence the Appellate Tribunal while deciding the appeal.

¶60

SD/-

¶61

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶62

NBM

¶63

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

Ashok Madivala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Madivala 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankarappa Vs Smt Susheelamma

Sri Byrappa Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt. Latha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Sirajuddin @ Chand Pasha Vs Smt Maimunnissa