Disposed

S.N. Raja v. State of Karnataka by Its

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024WP/52598/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner facing eviction notice under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for unauthorized cultivation sought regularization. Court permitted a fresh reply to the show cause notice and directed respondents to decide in accordance with law, restraining coercive steps meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh representation; respondents to consider and act in accordance with law; no coercive steps till decision.

S.N. Raja Vs State of Karnataka by Its — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43153 WP No. 52598 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 52598 OF 2014 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S.N. RAJA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, R/AT SAMETHANAHALLI VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD C.REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRA SHEKARA REDDY M.V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, PODIUM BLOCK, VIDHANA VEEDI, BANGALORE-1.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, KANDYA BHAVAN, S S GROUND FLOOR, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.HARISH A.S., AGA)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:43153 WP No. 52598 of 2014

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 11.07.2014 ISSUED IN NO.LND/CR/14/2013-14 BY RESPONDENT NO.3, AS PER ANNEXURE-J BY DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL & OPPOSED TO LAW IN SO FAR AS CONCERNED SCHEDULE ONLY AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that he is in unauthorized cultivation and occupation of 1 acre 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.192 of Samethanahalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk and notice has been issued to him under Sections 94 and 39 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for eviction. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

¶23

It is further contended that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the concerned authority for regularization of his unauthorized occupation and cultivation, which has not been considered so far.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43153 WP No. 52598 of 2014

¶25

Learned AGA upon instructions submits that the land concerned is a gunduthopu and any unauthorized occupation and cultivation of such land cannot be regularized. Nature of the land is disputed by the petitioner and he contends that it not a gunduthopu.

¶26

Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is given an opportunity to reply to the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3

¶27

and with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law after such reply and take appropriate decision. Hence, the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i) The petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh representation to respondent No.3 answering to the show cause notice dated 11.07.2014 within a period of three weeks from today;

¶30

ii) Respondents thereafter shall consider the reply of the petitioner and take appropriate action as expeditiously as possible;

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:43153 WP No. 52598 of 2014

¶33

iii) It is hereby made clear that if the request of the petitioner for regularization of the unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the land cannot be considered on the ground that said land cannot be granted as per law as it is gunduthopu, then in that event, respondents are at liberty to proceed pursuant to the impugned notice herein;

¶34

iv) If the records reveal that the request of the petitioner can be considered for regularization of unauthorized occupation and cultivation, then request of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law;

¶35

v) Till a decision is taken by the respondents authorities in this regard, they shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner;

¶36

vi) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶37

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶38

PGG

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

S.N. Raja v. State of Karnataka by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.N. Raja v. State of Karnataka by Its

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

Kiran Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer

Mr Krishna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Hanumakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sirtaj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Venkatamma Vs Devanahalli Tahsildar

Smt M Shakuntala T Alva Vs the State of Karnataka