Disposed

Ramesh B G v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2024WP/6604/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a land owner seeking direction to expedite decision on representations regarding land regularization and revenue entries submit that the petitioner has been granted land and paid requisite fees was disposed of with direction to consider representations within...

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 4 to consider representations dated 18.09.2014 and 24.02.2017 within three months of receipt of this order.

Ramesh B G Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20444 WP No. 6604 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 6604 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMESH B.G, W/O. LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BENNAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 5^TH FLOOR,

¶15

AMBEDKAR VEDHI, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE A C OFFICE,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:20444 WP No. 6604 of 2022

¶20

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶21

THE TAHASILDAR, MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

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

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO R-4 TO EXPEDITE DECISION ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.09.2014 AND 24.02.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶28

In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to consideration of representations dated 18.09.2014 and 24.02.2017 (Annexures-A and B) and to effect the revenue entries in respect of land in question.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioner on 24.06.1994 as per Annexure - C and pursuant to the same the Saguvali Chit has been issued in favour of petitioner. It is also

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20444 WP No. 6604 of 2022

¶31

stated in the petition that, the survey sketch has been prepared by Revenue Authority as per Annexure - D. The petitioner has paid requisite fee for regularization of land in question as per Annexure-E. It is pertinent to mention that, in the revenue records, the respondent No.4 has entered the name of the petitioner as per the order in MR.No.41/1998-99.

¶32

In that view of the matter, though the learned Additional Government Advocate urged that the document referred to above is fake in nature and no Committee had taken decision to grant land in question in favour of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the representations dated 18.09.2014 and 24.02.2017 (AnnexuresA and B) within an outer limit of three months from the receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Ramesh B G v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh B G 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zilla Harijana Shishitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr P Padmavathi Rao Vs the Tahsildar

K a Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mohini Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka