Allowed

Smt Raginiyamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2024WP/42223/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing a communication that directed the cancellation of a land grant to an exserviceman's estate. The court held the revocation lacked authority as the land was not notified as forest. The State was granted liberty to remove trees.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication dated 02.08.2017 was quashed, and liberty was reserved to the State to extract standing trees within three months.

Smt Raginiyamma Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:29822 WP No. 42223 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 42223 OF 2017 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RAGINIYAMMA, W/O JNANAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SHIVANASAMUDRA BLUFF, B G PURA HOBLI, MALLAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 430.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MALLAVALLI SUB DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 430.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 562 101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT.SAVITHA KULKARNI, HCGP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29822 WP No. 42223 of 2017

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2.8.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The competent authority, namely the Tahsildar, granted land bearing Survey No. 74, measuring 5 acres, situated at Nettakal village, Shivanasamudra Village, Malavalli Taluk, to the deceased husband of the petitioner, who was an exserviceman, by order dated 15.12.1995.

¶24

Subsequently, respondent No. 2 issued the impugned communication dated 17.11.1999, stating that Survey No. 74 is forest land and directing the cancellation of the grant, with an alternative grant of 5 acres in Survey No. 151 of Hebani village. Respondent No. 2 further communicated to respondent No. 1, requesting the cancellation of the grant made in favor of the deceased husband of the petitioner, on the grounds that the Forest

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:29822 WP No. 42223 of 2017

¶27

Department had, under the IWLDP scheme, dug pits and planted trees on the subject land.

¶28

The primary contention of the petitioner is that the subject land was Gomal land and was granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the impugned communication issued by respondent No. 2 lack authority.

¶29

Learned AGA for the respondent-State, on instructions, submits that the Forest Department should be permitted to remove the standing trees on the subject land, as the trees belong to the forest land.

¶30

This submission is placed on record.

¶31

Admittedly, the subject land is revenue land granted to the deceased husband of the petitioner, an exserviceman. In the absence of any notification reserving the land as forest land, the impugned notification issued by respondent No. 2 lacks authority.

¶32

7. Accordingly, I pass the following

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:29822 WP No. 42223 of 2017

¶37

ii. The impugned communication dated 02.08.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶38

iii. Liberty is reserved with respondent No.2 to extract the standing trees on the subject land at its own cost within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶39

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶40

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Smt Raginiyamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Raginiyamma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H Kumar Vs Sri Anil Kumar

Vasudev L Vs the Manager, M/S Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.

Shivappa @ Shivakumar Vs Manjunath Jd @ Rajanna

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank Vs Assistant Commissioner of Police

Sri. K Udyashankara Vs the State of Karnataka

Udaya G P Vs the Chief Manager and Authorized Officer, Karnataka Bank Ltd.