Dismissed¶¶33

Shri. Kalikadevi Devasthan Development Committee, v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2025WP/102499/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4399; WP No. 102499 of 2015 (KLR-RES); High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; M.G. Uma, J.; decided 7 March 2025. Kalikadevi Devasthan Development Committee Harugeri v. Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi; Tahsildar, Raibag; Gram Panchayat, Harugeri. Encroachment-clearance order under S.192(A) read with Ss.39, 67 and 94, Karnataka Land Revenue Act; show-cause notice 19.01.2015 (Annexure-C) unanswered; temple built 1992 on Government land R.S.No.2, Harugeri village, Raibag taluk, Belagavi without authority; certiorari and mandamus for land grant refused; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

It is not in dispute that the land in question in RS.No.2 of Harugeri village, Raibag taluk is a Government land. ¶¶31

Shri. Kalikadevi Devasthan Development Committee… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4399 WP No. 102499 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 102499 OF 2015 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. KALIKADEVI DEVASTHAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, HARUGERI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, RAIBAG TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST.

¶15

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

¶16

THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, HARUGERI, RAIBAG TALUK, BELAGAVI DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3 - SERVED)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CERTIORARI QUASHING AN ORDER BEARING NO.N.CR./CR 07/2014-15 DATED 20.02.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS FOR THE GRANT OF LAND BEARING R.S.NO.2 SITUATED AT

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4399 WP No. 102499 of 2015

¶20

HARUGERI VILLAGE OF RAIBAG TALUK OF BELAGAVI IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER COMMITTEE.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari

¶25

to quash the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure D, and to direct the respondents to take necessary steps for granting land bearing R.S.No.2 situated at Harugeri village of Raibag Taluk, Belagavi in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 is served but remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.

¶27

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶28

Petitioner-Shri Kalikadevi Devasthan Development Committee Harugeri, that the temple was built on the Government land

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4399 WP No. 102499 of 2015

¶30

during 1992 and a representation was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi for granting the land. No reply was received and therefore, the petitioner was waiting for the response from the Deputy Commissioner. The fact remains that a show-cause notice dated 19.01.2015 as per Annexure-C was issued by the Tahsildar, Raibag calling upon the petitioner to clear the encroachment of the Government land. The notice was issued under Section 192(A) read with Sections 39, 67 and 94 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is also admitted that the petitioner had not given any reply to Annexure-C. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 20.02.2015 came to be passed as per Annexure-D directing to clear the encroachment made by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the land in question in RS.No.2 of Harugeri village, Raibag taluk is a Government land. Even though it is the contention of the petitioner that a temple was constructed over the said land in the year 1992, admittedly there was no authority to construct such a temple. Even when the notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the encroachment should not be cleared, no reply was given by

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4399 WP No. 102499 of 2015

¶33

the petitioner which resulted in issuing the impugned order directing him to clear the encroachment. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to maintain the petition and to seek quashing of the impugned order. When the petitioner is not having any right over the property and when the petitioner did not care to reply to the show-cause notice, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/(M.G.UMA) JUDGE

¶35

MKM

¶36

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

Shri. Kalikadevi Devasthan Development Committee, v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kalikadevi Devasthan Development Committee, v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puttappa S/O Holeyappa Karanalli Vs Holebasappa S/O Basalingappa Bagavi

Venkoba S/O Thimappa Dasar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramadevara Temple of Tilavalli Vs Malathi Bai W/O Late Sripad Rao Nadiger

Shantamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Yallesh S/O. Gangadhar Lohar Vs the State of Karnataka

Guddappa S/O Shiddawwa Methri, Vs Syed Modinsab S/O Syed Nasiroddinsab Inamdar