Allowed

Mr Albert v. the Thasildar

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/30001/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to issue a land grant certificate for 5 cents in Survey No.215/1 based on an order dated 25.02.1982 granting occupancy rights to their father as agricultural labourer. State challenged genuineness of the grant. Court allowed petition, directing Tahsildar to hold enquiry and issue certificate if genuine.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to conduct enquiry into genuineness of the grant within six months and, if genuine, issue grant certificate.

Mr Albert Vs the Thasildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36791 WP No. 30001 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 30001 OF 2018 (LR-SEC 48A)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. ALBERT S/O LATE NARONA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶7

MR. ROBIN S/O JOKIM AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶8

MRS. THERESSA D/O MORIS NARONA AGED ABOUT 58 YEAS

¶9

MR. SIPRIYAN S/O MORIS NARONA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MR. ROBERT S/O MORIS NARONA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶12

MR. SILVISTER S/O MORIS NARONA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶13

MR. STANY S/O MORIS NARONA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶14

MRS. FLOORA D/O MORIS NARONA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36791 WP No. 30001 of 2018

¶16

PETITIONER NO. 2 TO 8 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. ALBERT PETITIONER NO.1

¶17

ALL PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENT OF KATAKERI VILLAGE SAMPAJE HOBLI KODAGU DISTRICT-574 234.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL .M.S, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE THASILDAR MADIKERI TALUK COORG DISTRICT-571 201.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COORG DISTRICT MADIKERI-571 201.

¶23

SRI. K. CHANDRASHEKHAR RAI S/O LATE T. MADAPPA RAI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT KATAKERI VILLAGE SAMPAJE HOBLI, MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-574 234

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; V/O DATED 04.09.2018 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶26

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE GRANT CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF 5 CENT OF LAND IN SY.NO.215/1 IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.1982 VIDE ANNEXURE-H, BY CONSIDERING THE

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36791 WP No. 30001 of 2018

¶28

REPRESENTATION DATED 14.05.1999 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND REPRESENTATION DATED 09.12.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-M.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The captioned petition is filed seeking a mandamus against respondents to issue grant certificate in respect of 5 cents of land in Survey No.215/1 in terms of the order dated 25.02.1982 vide Annexure-H by considering the representations dated 14.5.1999 and 9.12.2014 vide annexures- "K" and "M" respectively.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA.

¶34

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶35

Petitioners claim that their father was a tenant in

¶36

respect of land bearing Survey No.215/1 and 215/3 measuring 1-10 acres situated at Katakeri village, Madikeri Taluk. It is further contended that respondent No.3

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:36791 WP No. 30001 of 2018

¶39

submitted an application under Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the same land along with

¶40

other lands before the Land Tribunal, Madikeri in LRF.No.482/1975-76. Petitioners contend that in respect of a dwelling house, tax was also paid to the Made Grama Panchayath. Petitioners' father therefore, submitted a representation on 7.3.1991 requesting the Land Tribunal

¶41

to review its order and grant occupancy rights as agricultural labourer in respect of the house and open space adjoining the house. Petitioners assert that the Land Tribunal on an enquiry granted 5 cents of land under Section 38 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Respondent No.3 has acknowledged petitioners' possession over the dwelling house. Therefore, petitioners contend that they are entitled for issuance of grant certificate pursuant to the order passed vide Annexure-H.

¶42

Per contra, learned AGA would vehemently

¶43

argues and contend that the petitioner's claim is fraudulent and all these papers are created only to make a

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36791 WP No. 30001 of 2018

¶45

wrongful gain. Statement of objection is filed and the State has seriously disputed the grant made by the Land Tribunal in favour of the petitioners.

¶46

Having examined the records it is noticed that petitioners are asserting that their father was a tenant in respect of the agricultural land, however, their father suffered rejection of Form No.7 at the hands of the Land Tribunal. Petitioners' father was admittedly an agricultural labourer and was residing in a dwelling house in the petition land and therefore, was entitled to be registered as a occupant and accordingly, the Land Tribunal has granted the land measuring 5 cents which comprised dwelling house and open space. Petitioners have also placed reliance on the statement given by respondent No.3 before the Land Tribunal, wherein he has acknowledged petitioners' father's possession over the dwelling house.

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36791 WP No. 30001 of 2018

¶48

Since, there is a serious challenge to the very

¶49

genuineness of the order on which petitioners are placing reliance, it is open for respondent No.1/Tahsildar to examine the genuineness of the grant in favour of the petitioners evidenced at Annexure-H. The petitioners shall place all relevant documents in this regard. Respondent No.1/Tahsildar shall hold an enquiry by securing original records and ascertain the genuineness or validity of the grant made in favour of petitioners' father as per Annexure-"H".

¶50

With these observations, this Court proceeds to

¶51

pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶54

(ii) Respondent No.1/Tahsildar shall consider the representation submitted by the petitioners and shall conduct a detailed enquiry. While doing so, he shall secure records and shall call upon the petitioners to furnish all relevant documents.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:36791 WP No. 30001 of 2018

¶57

(iii) In the event, respondent No.1/Tahsildar opines that the grant made in favour of the father of the petitioners is genuine, he shall proceed to issue grant certificate.

¶58

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

¶59

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶60

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Mr Albert v. the Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Albert v. the Thasildar

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

Smt.Savubai Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shahnawaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Eswar Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nanjaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Guruvamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka