Disposed

Kemparaju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WP/31769/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought khata registration for a village site after the Assistant Commissioner's cancellation of the grant to Ramalingegowda was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner but the khata remained unchanged. The court disposed of the petition by directing the Panchayat to issue notice to Ramalingegowda and delete his name from the khata register in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 Panchayat to give notice to Ramalingegowda and delete his name from the khata register in accordance with law.

Kemparaju Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:18864 WP No. 31769 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 31769 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KEMPARAJU S/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DYAPASANDRA VILLAGE BASARALU HOBLI, KERAGODE POST MANDYA TQ & DISTRICT-571446

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. G M ANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB DIVISION MANDYA-571401.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MANDYA ZILLA PANCHAYAT MANDYA-571401.

¶15

THE HALLEGERE GRAMA PANCHAYAT MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571406

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:18864 WP No. 31769 of 2017

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/SECRETARY

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. B SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA. FOR R1-R2, SRI. B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO EFFECT THE KHATHA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SITE IN HOUSE LIST NO.178179 OF DYAPASANDRA VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

¶25

“(a) Issue writ of mandamus or order directing the 4^th respondent to effect the khata in favour of the petitioner in respect of the site in house list No.178-179 of Dyapasandra village, Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk and District.

¶26

(b) Direct the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to initiate necessary proceedings as per Annexures A and B.

¶27

(c) Direct the 4^th respondent to take necessary action as per the direction under

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18864 WP No. 31769 of 2017

¶29

Annexures A & D to effect the khatha in favour of the petitioner and to recognize the possession of the petitioner.”

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶31

contended that the petitioner was in possession of the site bearing Nos. 157, 168 and 159 in house list Nos.178-179 situated in Dyapasandra Village, Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk. The very same site has been allotted in favour of Ramalingegowda, S/o.Doddakarigowda. The grant has been challenged by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya. The Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub-Division, Mandya by order dated 29.06.1993 cancelled the allotment of sites made in favour of Ramalingegowda, S/o.Doddakarigowda. He, in-turn, challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya before the Divisional Commissioner, Mysuru in Appeal No.1/1993-94. The Divisional Commissioner, Mysuru, by order dated 29.04.1995 confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya dated 29.06.1993 by dismissing the appeal. Inspite of

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:18864 WP No. 31769 of 2017

¶33

cancellation of the grant in favour of the said

¶34

Ramlingegowda, the khata still continues in his name. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representations dated 02.05.2011 and 05.09.2013 to delete the name of Ramalingegowda S/o.Doddakarigowda and requested to enter his name in the khata register. Since the fourth respondent - Panchayat has not taken any action, he is before this court.

¶35

Sri B.J.Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Panchayat submits that, the petitioner has no right or title over the site in dispute, his name cannot be entered in the khata register. He further contended that Ramalingegowda S/o.Doddakaigowda is not a party in this writ petition and he has not disputed that the allotment of site in favour of Ramalingegowda has been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya and the same has been confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mysuru.

¶36

In view of the above, I pass the following order:

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:18864 WP No. 31769 of 2017

¶38

(i) This writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

(ii) The fourth respondent – Panchayat is directed to

¶40

give notice to Ramalingegowda, S/o.Doddakarigowda

¶41

and pass an order for deleting his name in the khata

¶42

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Kemparaju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kemparaju 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sunl Chajed Vs the Commissioner

S.Papanna Vs President

Smt Nandini C Vs Sri Chandrashekar

M/S Shri Lakshmi Marketing Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri M K Ramachandra Vs the Commissioner

Sri Kishore P S Vs Smt Meghana T M