Disposed

N/S Siggil India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2024WP/34010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner sought change of khata for survey lands at Kattamallur village. Without examining merits, the High Court directed the BDA and the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four months.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to consider representations and pass appropriate orders within four months.

N/S Siggil India Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51950 WP No. 34010 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.34010 OF 2024 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. SIGGIL INDIA LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR RUQSHAD F DADABHOY SY NO.65/1 AND 65/2, KATTAMANALLUR VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 049.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK KRISHNARAJPURA, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶14

COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:51950 WP No. 34010 of 2024

¶16

5^TH MAIN ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTALLI, BENGALURU -560 020.

¶17

HOSKOTE PLANNING AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶18

MEMBER SECRETARY, MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD,

¶19

1^ST CROSS, SRI VENKATADRI LAYOUT, HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114.

¶20

KOTHANURU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 049.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. H.T. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE, FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CHANGE OF KATHA IN RESPECT OF LANDS BEARING SURVEY NOS.65/1 AND 65/2 TOTALLY MEASURING 3 ACRES 24 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KATTAMANALLUR VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-J, K, N AND

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:51950 WP No. 34010 of 2024

¶26

DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CHANGE THE KATHA OF THE SAID LANDS IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Heard Sri. Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Ravindranath B., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. H.T. Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶31

The prayer made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is with regard to change of khata in respect of the subject land by the respondent - authority, in the name of the petitioner. It is stated by the learned counsel for petitioner that, petitioner has approached the respondent-authority by way of representations produced at Annexures-J, K and N respectively.

¶32

In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, respondent No.3 - BDA is

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:51950 WP No. 34010 of 2024

¶34

¶35

directed to consider the representation of the petitioner produced at Annexure-N dated 04.07.2024 and also, respondent No.2 herein is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner produced at Annexure-J, dated 04.09.2023, and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, within outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.

¶36

With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶37

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶38

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

N/S Siggil India Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N/S Siggil India Ltd. 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 Petronet Mhb Ltd. Vs Sri Rajanna

Sri Rajanna P Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Late M C Leela Vs the State of Karnataka

B v Janardhan Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Bandi Ningegowda Vs Mysore Urban Development Authority

Sri S. Raman Sastry @ S. Raman Vs the Commissioner