Disposed

Sri. Gangadharaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2024WP/2463/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner asserting ownership of a site based on a Hakku-Patra sought a direction to issue Katha. The court held representations not in the prescribed format could not be considered and disposed of the petition with liberty to file a proper application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file application in prescribed format; fourth respondent to consider and decide within three months.

Sri. Gangadharaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47057 WP No. 2463 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2463 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. GANGADHARAIAH S/O MARISWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT HAMPAPURA H D KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125. (BY SRI. O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RERAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, H D KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125.

¶15

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HAMPAPURA VILLAGE, H D KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:47057 WP No. 2463 of 2024

¶18

THE SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HAMPAPURA VILLAGE, H D KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 125.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4 SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R-1)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-2 TO R-4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-A AND D AND ISSUE A KHATHA IN RESPECT OF SITE NO. 132 ASSESSMENT NO. 134 AND JANJAR NO. 112 OF HAMPAPURA VILLAGE H.D KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT IN PURSUANCE OF THE GRANT DATED 26.05.81 MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-A AND D ON THE STRENGTH OF THE ISSUANCE OF GRANT (HAKKUPATRA ) VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:47057 WP No. 2463 of 2024

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, a 73 year old person who asserts ownership of the property bearing No.132, Assessment No.134, Janjar No.112 of Hampapura Village, H D Kote Taluk, Mysuru District [ the Subject Property ] within the limits of Hampapura Grama Panchayat, has filed this petition for a direction to the respondents to consider his different representations and issue Katha for the Subject Property.

¶27

Sri O Shivarama Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the aforesaid circumstances and the assertion that the petitioner has been granted Hakku - Patra for the Subject Property way back in the year 1989 by the Hampapura Grama Panchayat, submits that the petitioner has filed repeated representations, but the respondents have not considered the same. The learned counsel also submits that a public interest

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:47057 WP No. 2463 of 2024

¶30

litigation was filed in the writ petition in W.P. No.1863/2008 and this writ petition is disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 23.04.2018 stipulating that it is for the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat to consider and take decision, but no action has been taken so far.

¶31

Sri B J Somayaji, the learned counsel for the second to fourth respondents, submits that his tentative instructions are that the petitioner has encroached upon a Government land and relies upon a fabricated document but then the request for Katha is not considered because the petitioner has not submitted the application in the prescribed Format with all the necessary documents, and that unless the application is filed in the prescribed Format with all the necessary documents, the petitioner cannot succeed in this petition. Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, for the first

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:47057 WP No. 2463 of 2024

¶34

respondent, is heard in the light of these rival submissions.

¶35

If the petitioner is in possession of the subject property based on a Hakku - Patra, he is entitled to know why he must not be given the benefit of the revenue entries [ Katha ] by the Grama Panchayat but for the same, the petitioner must necessarily file an application in the prescribed Format along with all the supporting documents. Unless there is due compliance with these requirements, there cannot be a positive direction to the Grama Panchayat to consider the representations filed, which admittedly are not in the prescribed Format. In the light of the afore, and to ensure that there is expedited decision on the petitioner's request for revenue entries for the subject property, the following:

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:47057 WP No. 2463 of 2024

¶38

ORDER

¶39

[a] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file, within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, an application in the prescribed Format enclosing all the documents to substantiate his claim for the revenue entries [ Katha ] for the subject property.

¶40

[b] The fourth respondent, if the petitioner avails the liberty as aforesaid, shall consider the petitioner's application strictly in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner within three [3] months from the date of receipt of the application.

¶41

[c] It is needless to observe that if the petitioner has any cause even after the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:47057 WP No. 2463 of 2024

¶44

said consideration, the petitioner must necessarily avail statutory remedies.

¶45

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶46

AN/-

Sri. Gangadharaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gangadharaiah 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

M/S Vishnu Priya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thrilok Chandar Vs the Commissioner

Sri Jagadish J Sule Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Nanda Kumar N.R. Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Prasanna Kumar B Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka