Allowed

H.G. Shome v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/6119/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Urban Land Ceiling orders of 1988 and 1993 declaring surplus land. Since possession was never taken over and the ULC Act stands repealed, proceedings abated following Mukarram Ali Khan. Orders quashed; Tahsildar directed to restore petitioner's name in revenue records within three months.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 15.04.1988 and 19.03.1993 quashed; Tahsildar directed to enter petitioner's name in revenue records within three months.

H.G. Shome Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:30698 WP No. 6119 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6119 OF 2024 (ULC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H.G. SHOME S/O. LATE H.K.G. SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.98/98 BRINDA NILAYAM, 3^RD MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, DODDANEKUNDI, BENGALURU – 560 037. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KHANDAYA BHAVANA, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU-EAST-TALUK, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 036. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15/04/1988, PASSED IN CASE NO.ULC (1) 104/1985-86 AND PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 19/03/1993 IN CASE NO.ULC (1)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:30698 WP No. 6119 of 2024

¶18

104/1985-86 UNDER SECTION 10(3) OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, URBAN LAND CELLING, BANGALORE I.E. ANNEXURE-A AND B; DIRECT THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE GOVERNMENT/SARKARI IN COLUMN NO.9 AND 12(2) OF THE RTC EXTRACT I.E. ANNEXUER-J2.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order dated 15.04.1988, passed under Section 10(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1976” for short) at Annexure-A and the order dated 19.03.1993 passed under Section 10(3) of the Act at Annexure-B by the Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Bangalore (Annexure – B).

¶23

Heard Sri Harish N.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Radha Ramaswamy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:30698 WP No. 6119 of 2024

¶25

The material on record would indicate that the

¶26

father and mother of the petitioner purchased 10 guntas of land each under a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1969 and 28.05.1970 in land bearing Sy.No.6/1H measuring 34 guntas from N.A. Krishna Reddy. The owner of the schedule premises sold 33 guntas out of 34 guntas of land and he had retained an extent of 01 gunta, and out of 01 gunta, 3/4^th gunta was vacant land and 1/4^th gunta was dwelling house, the declaration was filed by the father and mother of the petitioner in respect of 20 guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.6/1H and it was ordered to be closed and no further action was necessary under Sections 8, 9, 10 or 11 of the Act and endorsed the declarant and accordingly, the Competent Authority issued an endorsement on 24.02.1988 and the owner N.A. Krishna Reddy filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act in respect of 01 gunta, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order declaring 34 guntas (3,439.82 sq.meters) instead of 01 gunta on 15.04.1988 and was published under Notification dated 19.03.1993.

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:30698 WP No. 6119 of 2024

¶28

The proceedings under the Act was dropped in

¶29

respect of 2,276.34 square meters dated 20.02.1988 and subsequent order dated 15.04.1988 under Section 10(1) of the Act and the publication of notification is without perusing the order dated 20.02.1988 and the impugned order is passed without perusing the documents and without holding proper enquiry.

¶30

It is contended by the petitioner that the

¶31

repealing of ULC Act by virtue of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 with effect from 18.03.1999, as held in various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court including the case of Mukarram Ali Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others¹ (Mukarram Ali Khan ) all the legal proceedings stood abated including the proceedings in relation to the petition land, since the possession continued to remain with the petitioner and the respondents did not take over the possession of the land

¶32

1 (2007)11 SCC 90

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:30698 WP No. 6119 of 2024

¶35

from the petitioner. In light of the same, the impugned order needs to be quashed.

¶36

Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that under identical circumstance, this Court in the case of

¶37

Sri. N.G.Narayanamurthy and others vs. The State of

¶38

Karnataka and others² in placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukarram Ali Khan has quashed the impugned orders dated 15.04.1988 and 19.03.1993.

¶39

A careful perusal of the material on record would indicate that the possession of the petition land has not been taken over by the respondents and in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mukarram Ali Khan and by virtue of repeal of ULC Act, all the proceedings including the impugned order would stand abated and deserves to be quashed and the present petition needs to be disposed of in terms of the decision in

¶40

2 W.P.No.29669/2009 disposed of on 15.02.2024

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:30698 WP No. 6119 of 2024

¶43

in N.G. Narayanamurthy’s case. In the result, this Court

¶44

pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶47

(ii) The impugned orders at Annexure – A dated

¶48

15.04.1988 and Annexure – B dated 19.03.1993 are

¶49

hereby quashed.

¶50

(iii) Respondent No.3- Tahsildar is directed to enter the name of the petitioner in respect of revenue records in respect of petition lands within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31

H.G. Shome v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.G. Shome v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt L Vijayalakshmi Vs the General Manager (Revenue)

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Regional Transport Authority

T.A. Abdulla Vs Ramanna Poojari (Since Dead by His Lrs)

Panchayath Development Officer Vs Krishna Urs

Bheemaiah Vs Sri. Krishnappa

Us Technology International Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ms Manju S Pillai