The court dismissed the writ petition filed regarding regularization of unauthorized land possession. It held that disputed questions of fact existed due to the significant time lapse since the original representation, precluding immediate relief.
Petitioner directed to make one more representation for redressal; no immediate relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:19610 WP No. 4672 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 4672 OF 2023 (KLR-REG)
BETWEEN:
MRS. JASMINE KUNDAR W/O SAMUEL KUNDAR AGED 68 YEARS R/AT KAPETTU, KIDIYOOR VILLAGE POST KIDIYOOR UDUPI - 576 103 UDUPI DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA
Location: High Court of Karnataka
BENGALURU - 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA)
NC: 2024:KHC:19610 WP No. 4672 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF PETITIONER WITH REGARD TO HER PRAYER/REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY HER DT 05.11.2012 AS PER ANNX-Z5 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3 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.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.
parties.
respondent-authorities.
4. Having taken note of the factual aspects on
record, it would indicate that, disputed question of facts are involved in writ petition and the representation is of the year 2012 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2023, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. However, it is open for the petitioner to make one more representation, if so advised, for redressal of his grievance.
Accordingly, the writ petition dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed eleven years after the initial representation regarding grave factual disputes can be granted relief.
Whether the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact and was maintainable.
Whether the legal representatives should be directed to make a fresh representation instead of granting immediate relief.
MRS. JASMINE KUNDAR W/O SAMUEL KUNDAR
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAJATADRI
THE TAHASILDAR UDUPI
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
