Partly allowed

Sri. G N Devaraj v. the Assistant Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024WP/24952/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, held that the Assistant Commissioner cannot proceed with the suo motu enquiry under Section 108K of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules until the fact-finding report from the jurisdictional Tahsildar regarding the 18-kilometer radius is received.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed in part; proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 were deferred; Respondent No.1 cannot proceed with the enquiry until the report from Respondent No.2 is received.

Sri. G N Devaraj Vs the Assistant Commissioner and Sub… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37427 WP No. 24952 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.24952 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. G N DEVARAJ S/O G R NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMIPURA HOSALLI POST THIRTHAHALLI ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577432

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.DILEEP KUMAR M V, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION BALARAJ URS ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577201

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR SHIVAMOGGA TALUK COURT COMPLEX DCC BANK SHIVAMOGGA KARNATAKA - 577201

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:37427 WP No. 24952 of 2024

¶17

BALARAJ URS ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577201

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE R-1 TO DEFER ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN L.N.D.CR-170/19-20 UNTIL THE R-2 SUBMITS THE FACT-FINDING REPORT AS SOUGHT BY THE R-1 IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 02.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents.

¶24

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶25

petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶26

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1, the Assistant Commissioner, as evidenced by Annexure-F. The main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel, while reiterating the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37427 WP No. 24952 of 2024

¶28

arguments made in the writ petition, is that the suo motu enquiry initiated by Respondent No.1 under Section 108K

¶29

of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules is based on the claim that the grant awarded to the petitioner violates a Government Notification. The primary issue is that the granted land is located within an 18-kilometer radius. Following the remand order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, instructed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to submit a report regarding the 18-kilometer radius, as shown in Annexure-A. Despite seeking a report from the Tahsildar, Respondent No.1 has proceeded with the enquiry, as evidenced by Annexure-F.

¶30

4. I find merit in the arguments presented by the learned Senior Counsel.

¶31

5. When Respondent No.1, the Assistant Commissioner, has requested a report and issued directions to Respondent No. 2, the Tahsildar, it is expected that the Assistant Commissioner should not

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:37427 WP No. 24952 of 2024

¶34

proceed with the enquiry without first receiving the report. However, the records indicate that, contrary to this expectation, Respondent No.1 is moving forward with the enquiry, which may prejudice the petitioner’s rights. Therefore, this Court holds that Respondent No. 1 cannot proceed with the enquiry until the report from Respondent No. 2 is received.

¶35

6. In light of the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The writ petition is allowed in

¶38

part.

¶39

(ii) The proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1, the Assistant Commissioner, as evidenced by Annexure-F, are hereby defered.

¶40

(iii) Respondent No.1 is directed not to proceed with the enquiry until a report is duly submitted by Respondent No.2, the jurisdictional Tahsildar, regarding the

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37427 WP No. 24952 of 2024

¶42

radius of 18 kilometers, as previously directed.

¶43

(iv) Upon receipt of the report from Respondent No.2, Respondent No.1 may proceed in accordance with law, ensuring that the petitioner is provided an opportunity to be heard.

¶44

(v) All rights and contentions of the parties are left open, and the petitioner is at liberty to challenge any adverse orders, if passed, in accordance with law.

¶45

(vi) No cost.

¶46

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶47

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri. G N Devaraj v. the Assistant Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. G N Devaraj v. the Assistant Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate

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

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Arnold Mendonca Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Venkatachalaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Saphia Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chikka Seethappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr. Ramanatha Shetty Vs State of Karnataka