Allowed

Smt Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/24637/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought grant of land under Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act; her representation was pending before authorities despite supporting documents. Holding there was complete inaction, the High Court issued mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner to decide the representation in accordance with law within six months.

What did the court decide?

Deputy Commissioner directed to decide petitioner's representation (Annexure-K) in accordance with law within six months.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36962 WP No. 24637 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 24637 OF 2022 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS NETTEKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT 573115

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.H.M.GIRISHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.J.ALVA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573201

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISON

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:36962 WP No. 24637 of 2022

¶18

SAKALESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR BELUR TALUK BELUR HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 215

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R.2 AND THE OTHER RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 3.11.2022 AT ANNEXURE - K FOR GRANT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO HER WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS THAT MAY BE FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT 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

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking mandamus against respondent No.2 and other

¶26

respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 03.11.2022 as per Annexure-K and grant the petition property.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:36962 WP No. 24637 of 2022

¶29

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

petitioner and learned AGA

¶31

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner in not considering the petitioner's representation, wherein petitioner is seeking grant of land under Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The petitioner is placing reliance on the order passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-D. The petitioner contends that her husband was in continuous and uninterrupted possession and cultivating the petition land of 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy. No.82 of Nettegere Village. In view of insertion of Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the petitioner’s husband submitted an application on 05.07.1991 before the Akrama Sakrama Committee of which respondent No.4 is the Secretary. The petitioner contends that similar applications were submitted seeking grant of land.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36962 WP No. 24637 of 2022

¶33

4. The petitioner is placing reliance on the spot inspection done by respondent No.4 – Tahasildar, Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant evidenced at Annexures-E to G. Placing reliance on these documents, the petitioner is asserting that her husband was entitled for grant and the documents placed along with writ papers clearly substantiate the petitioner occupation seeking grant of the land.

¶34

5. Learned AGA, on instructions, submits that the application is pending and the same will be considered and decided by the Committee in accordance with law. He has also brought to the notice of this Court that one Harish assailing the order passed by respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure –D has preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the revision and while dismissing the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has opined that the lands shall be reserved for implementation of the public schemes.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:36962 WP No. 24637 of 2022

¶37

6. Since there is non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation vide Annexure-K, this Court deems it fit to issue necessary directions to the respondents. The petitioner is seeking grant under Section 77 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act. The surplus lands, which are vested with the State Government, have to be disposed of by strictly adhering to the reservation policy as indicated in Section 77(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Authorities is required to hold an enquiry and ascertain whether petitioner is entitled to seek grant under Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Since there is complete inaction on the part of the respondents in not deciding the application, this is a fit case where mandamus lies.

¶38

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36962 WP No. 24637 of 2022

¶42

(ii) Respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-K in accordance with law.

¶43

(iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six months from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶44

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶45

NBM

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmamma 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

Anitha R Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

V S Thimmegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Indresh H N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. G. Sheela Vs the Govt of Karnataka

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sandesh v P Vs the State of Karnataka