Allowed

Puttaswamy @ Puttaswamygowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024WP/4533/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition, setting aside orders rejecting a land regularisation application for lack of description regarding the alleged five acres of land owned by the petitioner's father, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 18.07.2019 and 15.02.2017 were set aside and the matter was remanded to the competent authority to examine the details of the land.

Puttaswamy @ Puttaswamygowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21509 WP No. 4533 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 4533 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PUTTASWAMY @ PUTTASWAMYGOWDA S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O GUVAPURA VILLAGE Y.T. HALLI POST VIRUPAKSHAPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 138

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VINAY D HOSMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 159

¶13

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

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB - DIVISION RAMANAGARA - 562 159

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR SECRETARY TO THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21509 WP No. 4533 of 2022

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE R1 IN REVISION PETITION 115/2017-18 DATED 18.07.2019 AND QUASHING ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY THE R2 IN R.A.93/2014-15 DATED 15.02.2017 AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.

¶23

Heard Sri. Vinay D. Hosmath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State.

¶24

In this writ petition, the petitioner is

¶25

assailing the order dated 18.07.2019 in R.P.No.115 of 2017-18 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent No.1

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21509 WP No. 4533 of 2022

¶27

and order dated 15.02.2017 in RA No.93 of 2014-15 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.2.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel appearing

¶29

for the parties, it is the case of the petitioner that, the father of the petitioner was in unauthorised cultivation of land bearing Sy.No.94, measuring 01 acre, 24 guntas situate at Nelamakanahalli Village, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District. It is stated that, father of the petitioner has made application to the respondent-authorities seeking regularisation of land in question. The claim made by the father of the petitioner was placed before the competent authority/Committee and said Committe has rejected the application made by the father of the petitioner on

¶30

the ground that petitioner's father is owning five acres of land and therefore, rejected the application made by the father of the petitioner. The said order of rejection was questioned before the respondent No.2

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21509 WP No. 4533 of 2022

¶32

in RA No.93 of 2014-15 and the respondent No.2 by order dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure-C) rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.1 in RP No.115 of 2017-18 and the respondent No.1 herein by order dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure-D), confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.2 and as such, dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition is presented.

¶33

It is submitted by Sri.Vinay D.Hosmath,

¶34

learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner has filed an affidavit before this Court dated 08.03.2022 stating that, the father of the petitioner is not owning any land except the land granted by the competent authority to an extent of two acres of (regularised) land in Sy.No.94 as per the saguvali chit produced and therefore, he contended that the

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21509 WP No. 4533 of 2022

¶36

reasons assigned by the respondent-authorities

¶37

stating that the petitioner is owning five acres of land, is not correct. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this court.

¶38

Per contra , Smt.B.P.Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State sought to justify the impugned orders and submitted that, the competent authority has to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of the provisions contained under Rule 108 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and as the father of the petitioner is owning five acres of land, as such, the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities are just and proper. Accordingly, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21509 WP No. 4533 of 2022

¶41

careful examination of the impugned orders produced at Annexures-C and D would indicate that, it is not stated by the respondent-authorities that in which place the petitioner is owning the five acres of land and the details of the survey number and other details relating to description of the property and in that view of the matter, as the impugned orders produced at Annexures-C and D are passed without specifying the description of the land with regard to five acres said to have been owned by the father of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that, the reasons assigned at Annexures-C and D cannot be accepted. In the result, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) Writ petition is allowed ;

¶44

ii) Order dated 18.07.2019 in RP No.115 of 2017-18 (Annexure-D) passed by the

¶45

respondent No.1 and order dated 15.02.2017

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:21509 WP No. 4533 of 2022

¶48

in RA No. 93 of 2014-15 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.2 are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the competent authority /Committee constituted under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules to examine as to whether the father of the petitioner or the petitioner is having five acres of land with description of the that, as stated in their conclusion and to take decision in the matter in a manner known to law.

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Puttaswamy @ Puttaswamygowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttaswamy @ Puttaswamygowda v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Mr.U.H.Mohammed Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Agnes Ozhukayil Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms Diya Devaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Thimmanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rajamma Vs State of Karnataka