Smt Parvati W/O Shambu Bhat Vs the Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7299 WP No. 102812 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102812 OF 2025 (KLR-REG)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PARVATI W/O. SHAMBU BHAT, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HITLA GADDE, BIDRALLI VILLAGE, TQ: YALLAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581473.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SAURABH A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶12

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI SHRIPAD HEGDE, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SHIGEHALLI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401.

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

SMT. GAYATRI W/O. SHANKAR RAO, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401.

¶16

SMT. NIRMAL ANANT HEGDE, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SAMPIGADDE, KODANAGADDE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581 401.

¶17

SMT. SAVITRI VENKATRAMAN BHAT, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O. J-1, B-103, NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, DIST: BENGALURU-560034.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7299 WP No. 102812 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 & R4; R2-R5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶24

ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/10/2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN REV. APPEAL NO.630/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶25

CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.RB/FOR/CR-40/98-99 DATED 24/04/2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶26

CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO GRANT REGULARISATION OF SY. NO.48 OF BIDRALLI VILLAGE IN YELLAPUR TALUK TOTALLY MEASURING 1 ACRE 27 GUNTAS TO THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7299 WP No. 102812 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶32

Petitioner is one of the daughters of late Sri Suryanarayanrao Gopal Bhat, who had encroached the forest land bearing Sy.No.48 of Bidralli village in Yellapur taluka totally measuring 01 acre, 27 guntas. Subsequent to the death of father of petitioner, mother of petitioner continued to cultivate the said land as an encroacher. She had made an application seeking regularisation of the land to the concerned authority. The Assistant Commissioner conducted the spot inspection along with Tahasildar and submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, based on which, the petitioner’s request came to be rejected. The matter was taken up before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘KAT’) and after hearing the parties, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration on the ground that the petitioner’s mother was not heard before passing of the said order. The KAT remitted the matter for fresh consideration to give opportunity to the petitioner on the ground that the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7299 WP No. 102812 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Deputy Commissioner had not discussed anything about the cultivation of the land by the petitioner or her mother and no enquiry was made except the report submitted by subordinate officers, who had not provided proper notice to the encroachers as these aspects were not forthcoming, the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. However, the matter on remand was taken up by the Deputy Commissioner, who passed an order rejecting the application for grant of land, as he did not find any reason to allow the appeal of the petitioner. However it is seen vide the impugned order that no proper reasoning is provided by the 1^st respondent while passing the impugned order. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal once again before the KAT in Revenue Appeal No.630/2017, which also came to be dismissed by the KAT, which is questioned before this Court.

¶36

It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for

¶37

the petitioner that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal are illegal, contrary to facts and materials placed on record

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7299 WP No. 102812 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

and have only reiterated the earlier order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the report submitted by the subordinate officers and no fresh enquiry has been conducted, neither the petitioner has been heard with regard to possession and cultivation of the land as was ordered in the earlier round of litigation by the KAT. It is only on the ground of father of the petitioner holding sufficient land, the impugned orders are passed, which is again erroneous for the reason that the land/properties belongs to the Temple and the petitioner’s father was an ‘Archaka’ of the Temple. This merely cannot be a ground for rejecting plea of the petitioner, which was earlier decided by the KAT and hence, it was ordered for reconsideration of the matter afresh and conduct fresh enquiry. But the same has not been done by the Deputy Commissioner, which has been ignored by the KAT. On all these grounds, he seeks to allow this petition.

¶41

Learned AGA representing the respondent/State sustains the order passed by the KAT and contends that all aspects for considerations were taken up by the Deputy Commissioner, so also based on the orders passed by the

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7299 WP No. 102812 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Deputy Commissioner, the KAT has considered the same and on being satisfied with the proceedings conducted by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the documents produced by the subordinate officers and on there being no fresh evidence produced by the petitioner, did not find any good ground of reason to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. He contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner or the KAT. On all these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶45

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 6.

¶46

In the first round of litigation, the KAT had clearly given a finding with regard to non-discussion by the Deputy Commissioner with regard to cultivation of the land by petitioner or her father and no enquiry having been made and whether the subordinate officers had produced the report based on any proper notice to the petitioner/

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7299 WP No. 102812 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

encroachers or not, this was to be ascertained when the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration afresh. At the time of reconsideration, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have gone into these intricate aspects of proper notice to the encroachers/petitioner and call them to produce any necessary documents and provide a proper hearing to the petitioner and given a finding to that effect. Whereas the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of earlier reports submitted by the subordinate officers including the Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner, relied upon the same and has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the basis of high annual income of land holding by the father of petitioner. On appeal preferred by the petitioner, once again has been rejected by the KAT on the very same ground, admitting the enquiry report of the Tahasildar and the Assistant Commissioner, at the time of regularisation on the ground of high annual income of the father of the petitioner. Therefore, it is apparently clear that no fresh material or evidence or enquiry has been conducted before

¶50

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7299 WP No. 102812 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the Court for consideration by the Deputy Commissioner, which aspect has been ignored by the KAT.

¶53

Under the circumstances, the very purpose of remand made by the KAT, has not been gone into by the Deputy Commissioner while reassessing and reconsidering the matter afresh. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered in view of the directions or findings which was given earlier. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner would have to go into the aspect of the cultivation of land by the petitioner or the father earlier, conduct a proper enquiry not only on the basis of the report and call for fresh report from the concerned officers namely Tahasildar or the Assistant Commissioner by providing proper notice to the petitioner/encroacher, provide a proper hearing to the petitioner and pass suitable reasoned order on the basis of directions given by this Court. Therefore, I pass the following :

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) Petition is allowed.

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7299 WP No. 102812 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

(ii) The impugned order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-F in Revenue Appeal No.630/2017 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner dated 24.04.2017 at Annexure-B is also hereby quashed.

¶59

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent/Deputy Commissioner, Karwar to reconsider the matter on the basis of the observations and findings given by this Court afresh by giving proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass suitable reasoned order. The entire process shall be proceeded expeditiously.

¶60

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶61

CKK

¶62

CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Smt Parvati W/O Shambu Bhat v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Parvati W/O Shambu Bhat v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B R Mangasuli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M M Shankrappa S/O Muniyappa Vs the Managing Director

Konaria Shikshan Samsthe (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

The Arya Vaishya Sangha Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxminarayan Gurunathappa Doddamani Vs Gurulingappa Veerappa Tadasad

M/S Shivayya Fuel Station Rep by Its Prop Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited