Disposed

Vanaja Shedthi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/382/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement rejecting her land regularisation application, seeking court direction. Court held that since she faces pending proceedings before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, the writ petition was not requisite and was disposed of. No regularization was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to workout remedy before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court; writ petition disposed of.

Vanaja Shedthi Vs the State of Karnataka — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20669 WP NO.382 OF 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.382 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VANAJA SHEDTHI S/O ANANDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RA/T DOOR NO.4-33A, NEAR TAVAREKERE, AMBALPADI, KIDIYOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 103.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20669 WP NO.382 OF 2023

¶20

PETITIONER WITH REGARD TO HER PRAYER FOR REGULARIZATION OF HER UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION, POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SCHEDULE LAND IN QUESTION AND NOT TO DISPOSSESS HER FROM THE SCHEDULE LAND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government

¶24

Advocate accepts notice for respondents.

¶25

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for regularisation of her un-authorised occupation, possession and enjoyment of the subject land.

¶26

Heard Sri. Sudesh Kumar Acharya U., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition, the same would indicate that the endorsement dated 02^nd May, 2016 (Annexure-Z) is issued by the respondent No.2-Tahsildar, rejecting the application made by the petitioner dated 01^st July, 2015 for regularisation of the land in question. Therefore

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:20669 WP NO.382 OF 2023

¶30

consideration of the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition does not arise. It is also to be noted that the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court had issued notice dated 04^th June, 2022 (Annexure-AA) to the petitioner and the matter is pending consideration before the said Court in L.G.C. (G) No.11276 of 2021. In that view of the matter, it is for the petitioner to workout his remedy before the aforesaid Court. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

ARK

Vanaja Shedthi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanaja Shedthi 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

Smt. Mohini Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

H. C. Boraiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M Gopala Krishna Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Niroop D J Vs the Regional Joint Director