Allowed

Sri. Chandrappa v. State Ofkarnataka

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024WP/8073/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged eviction order asserting he had legal title to land via mutation, claiming proceedings violated natural justice. Court held eviction order unsustainable due to lack of notice and evidence. Quashed order and remanded for notice and proper inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned eviction orders quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration after notice and proper inquiry.

Sri. Chandrappa Vs State Ofkarnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31681 WP No. 8073 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8073 OF 2023 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE ESSHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HUNSEKATTE VILLAGE, KASAB-II HOBLI, BHADVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577115.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.N.NITISH., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OFKARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDH, BANGALORE 560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF FOREST VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

CHIEF CONSERVTOR OF FOREST SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶16

ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CHANNAGIRI SUB-DIVISION, CHANNAGIRI TOWN, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213.

¶17

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER UMBELEBAILU RANGE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31681 WP No. 8073 of 2023

¶19

UMBELEVAILU VILLAGE AND POST, SIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577115.

¶20

THE FOREST OFFICER, LAKKINAKOPPA CIRCLE, OFFICE OF UMBELEBAILU RANGE FOREST, UMBELEVAILU VILLAGE AND POST, SIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577115.

¶21

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶22

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶23

THE TASHILDAR BHADRVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577115.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-9)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2023 IN APPEAL NO.10/2015.16 PASSED BY THE R3(ANNEXURE-E), ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the third respondent, which affirmed the order issued by the fourth respondent, wherein the petitioner is sought to be evicted from the subject land. The basis for the eviction order is the assertion that

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:31681 WP No. 8073 of 2023

¶33

the deceased father of the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the said land.

¶34

The petitioner contends that his deceased father was granted 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 14, situated at Hunasekatte Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, and that a Saguvali Chit (certificate of grant) was issued to him on 31.12.1994 by the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi. Following the grant, the name of the petitioner’s deceased father was duly mutated in the revenue records for the said extent of land. After the demise of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner’s name was subsequently mutated in the revenue records as the rightful successor. The petitioner asserts that the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice either to his deceased father or to the petitioner himself, and without conducting a proper inquiry as required under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The order, which claims that the petitioner’s deceased father was in unauthorized occupation of the subject land, was confirmed by the third respondent in an appeal filed under Section 64A(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act. Hence, this petition has been filed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order is legally unsustainable as it was passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, the counsel contends that there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the 3 acres of land belonging to the petitioner forms part of Sy. No. 14, allegedly encroached upon as forest land, and hence the order is not legally tenable.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:31681 WP No. 8073 of 2023

¶38

In response, Sri. Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate, contends that the survey map was drawn under Rule 33 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, and such a survey does not require notice to be issued to any party and is binding on the petitioner. Therefore, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have rightly passed the impugned order, which, according to him, does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶39

The arguments of both counsel have been duly considered.

¶40

It is undisputed that the survey was not conducted in the presence of the petitioner or his deceased father to verify whether the land in the petitioner’s possession constituted part of the 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 14 that was marked as ‘Encroached’ in the survey map. Consequently, in the absence of any supporting evidence indicating that the land belonging to the petitioner constitutes part of the encroached forest land, the orders issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are legally unsustainable.

¶41

In light of the foregoing, the impugned orders cannot be upheld, and the petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the concerned authorities for reconsideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and conducting a proper inquiry in accordance with law.

¶42

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the third respondent at Annexure-E and the impugned order dated 04.05.2015 passed by the fourth respondent at Annexure-A are hereby quashed.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:31681 WP No. 8073 of 2023

¶45

The fourth respondent is hereby directed to conduct the survey of land in the presence of the petitioner and upon survey, if it is found that the petitioner is in possession of the forest land and if that extent of land is notified as forest land, the fourth respondent is directed to take immediate steps to evict the petitioner from the subject land.

¶46

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶47

GSR

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73

Sri. Chandrappa v. State Ofkarnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrappa v. State Ofkarnataka

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

M/S S P Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Samskruthi Couriers Vs Dcb Bank Ltd.

Sri Gaurav Aggarwal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shakeela Bi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Hitesh Soni Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Savithramma , Vs State of Karnataka