Dismissed

Sri. Hanumantharayappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024WP/40889/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by family members challenging orders that allowed ex-servicemen to retain purchased land in Hoskote Village. The Court held that since the land was acquired by the respondents through a paid grant in 1989, it is private property, making regularization of unauthorized cultivation claims by the petitioners inapplicable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Hanumantharayappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.40889 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O BANDEPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶9

SRI H.L. NAGARAJU S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. H.L. LAKSHMI D/O. LATE LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶12

SRI H.L. ARUNKUMAR S/O LATE LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶14

SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶17

SRI ASHWATHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶18

a) SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶19

b) SRI BALAKRISHNA S/O ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶20

ALL ARE R/AT HOSKOTE VILLAGE, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI P.N. NANJAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.

¶25

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR -562 101.

¶26

THE TAHSILDAR GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, GOWRIBIDANUR - 562 104.

¶27

SRI MADANGOPAL SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶28

a) SMT. VASUGI GOPAL W/O. LATE GP CAPTAIN MADAN GOPAL

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶30

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶31

b) SRI ABHINAV GOPAL S/O LATE GP CAPTAIN MADAN GOPAL AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶32

c) SRI ABHISHEK GOPAL S/O LATE GP CAPTAIN MADAN GOPAL AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶33

4 (a) TO (c) ARE R/AT NO.A1-303 CENTURY COMMANDERS VISTA ANANTHAPURA GAGE YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU-560 064.

¶34

Y.S. MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O SHIVARUDRAIAH AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.222, MANOJ ENTERPRISES, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, JNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD, NAGARABHAVI CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 072.

¶35

H.S. RAMAKRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S

¶36

a) SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE H.S. RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶37

b) SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA @ PILLANJANEYA S/O LATE H.S. RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶38

6 (a) & (b) ARE R/AT HOSSUR VILLAGE GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶41

CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI G.A. SRIKANTEGOWDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. RAJAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 & R.5; SRI K.B. THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R.6.)

¶44

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2017 IN REVISION PETITION NO.35/2010 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-F) AND THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2010 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, IN APPEAL NO.RA.40/2008-09 (ANNEXURE-B) , ETC.

¶45

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶47

ORAL ORDER

¶48

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by

¶49

the first respondent vide Annexure - 'B to the writ petition

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶52

and the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure - 'F' to the writ petition, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

¶53

The dispute pertains to 13 acres of land in Sy.No.113 of Hoskote Village, Hossur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk. The case of the petitioners is that they are in un-authorised occupation and cultivation of the land concerned and they have made necessary application to the concerned Authorities for regularization of the said land. It is submitted that in the meanwhile, the land was granted to respondent Nos.4 to 6, which was subsequently, cancelled on 08.03.2004 and thereafter, an appeal was filed only by respondent No.4 in respect of only 4 acres 20 guntas of the said land before the Deputy Commissioner and the same came to be allowed in R.A.No.40/2008-09. Against the same, the petitioners herein preferred Revision No.35/2010 before the Karnataka Appellate Authority which came to be

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶56

dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶57

"Wherefore, the petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs:-

¶58

(a) Issue a writ of certiorari mandamus of any other appropriate writ, quashing the order dated 21.08.2017 in Revision Petition No.35/2010 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (Annexure-F) and the Order dated 16.08.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapur District, in Appeal No.RA.40/2008-09 (Annexure-B) and the same are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Grant Rules.

¶59

(b) Issue a Writ of the mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents not to interfere with the lawful possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the land bearing Survey No.113 measuring 13 Acres of Hoskote Village, Hossur Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk consequent upon quashing the orders at Annexures F and B respectfully."

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶62

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and

¶63

5 submits that they are ex-servicemen and they purchased

¶64

4 acres 20 guntas each of land in a public auction conducted by the Government. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that he purchased 4 acres of land in a public auction conducted by the Government. It is seen that the lands have been granted to respondent Nos.4 to 6 for a consideration way back in the year 1989. The said fact is not disputed by the State. It is further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner passed an order dated 08.03.2004 without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of law wherein the grant made in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 were illegally set aside. Against the said order, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and during the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos.5 and 6 got impleaded themselves in the said proceedings and the order passed

¶65

by the Deputy Commissioner pertains to the entire 13 acres of land and in the said order, the order made by the

¶66

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶67

Assistant Commissioner dated 08.03.2004 has been set aside. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before the Karnataka Appellate Authority in revision petition No.35/2010 and respondent Nos.4 to 6 have been impleaded as parties and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has been confirmed and the challenge of the petitioners have been rejected. It is submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 6 became owners of the property by way of a grant for consideration and not a free grant as contended by the petitioners and there is no error in the impugned orders and it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶68

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing

¶69

for respondent Nos.1 to 3 upon instructions supports the contention of respondent Nos.4 to 6 and she further submits that the petitioners made an application for regularization of unauthorized cultivation and upon enquiry it is found that the petitioners are not in such unauthorized occupation and cultivation. She further submits that

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶72

respondent Nos.4 to 6 became the owners of the property by way of a grant made to them for a consideration and it was not a free grant. She also further submits that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 08.03.2004 was without jurisdiction and erroneous on facts as well as on law. She also submits that the land is a private land belonging to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the question of regularizing the unauthorized cultivation does not arise. She also submits that the request of the petitioners have also been rejected.

¶73

As respondent Nos.4 to 6 have admittedly got the property by way of a grant by paying consideration and they have become the owners of the same way back in the year 1989-90 and the land has become a private land at that particular point of time itself, the question of granting the same in favour of the petitioners on the ground that they are in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the same does not arise. I do not see any error in the impugned orders.

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:49969 WP No. 40889 of 2017

¶76

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is

¶77

hereby dismissed .

¶78

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶79

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Sri. Hanumantharayappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Hanumantharayappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sukruth Autoteck Industries Vs the Union of India

M/S Naganna Eranna Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ambligola Project Private Limited Vs Union of India

Ritnand Balved Education Foundation Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Davanam Constructions Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax