Smt Avvamma Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:18522 WP No. 21731 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.21731 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. AVVAMMA W/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326 TALUK BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶10

SMT. BEEPATHUMMA D/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326 TALUK BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. SARAMMA D/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326, TALUK BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶13

HAMAD KUNHI S/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326 TALUK BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18522 WP No. 21731 of 2023

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SMT. RUKIYA D/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326, TALUK BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶17

SMT. MAIMUNA D/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326 TALUK BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶18

SMT. JAMEELA D/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326, TALUK BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶19

ABBAS D/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326, TALUK BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶20

ADAM D/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326, TALUK BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18522 WP No. 21731 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

USMAN SHARIFF D/O LATE ISUBU @ KUNHI BEARY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, GUTHI KANDA HOUSE, BARYA - 574326, TALUK BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶28

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶29

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SUB DIVISION, PUTTUR - 574201, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶30

THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, BELTHANGADY TALUK, BELTHANAGADY - 574214 DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶31

THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF THE BARYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BARYA, BARYA POST 574326 BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:18522 WP No. 21731 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BARYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, BARYA, BARYA POST - 574326 BELTHANGADY TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2023 BEARING CASE NO. CDL.LND(3B)CR.08/2022/E-165961/B3 VIDE ANNEXURE-N PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA, VIDE ANNEXURE -N, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION; AND ETC.

¶39

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.

¶42

The petitioners herein are assailing the order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure-N) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner and order dated

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:18522 WP No. 21731 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

18.03.2023 (Annexure-P) passed by the r.. No.3 inter-alia

¶47

sought for quashing the recommendation made by respondent No.3 dated 03.09.2021.

¶48

I have heard Sri.Abu Backer Shafi, learned

¶49

counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Savitramma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondentsState.

¶50

It is contended by Sri.Abu Backer Shafi,

¶51

learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners herein are the owners of the land and some of the petitioners are the adjacent owners of the land bearing Sy.No.78/1, of Barya Village, Belthangadi Taluk and the subject land mentioned in the Annexure-P is a Kumki land and therefore, the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 is liable to be quashed as the land in question is Kumki land as the petitioners are having right over the subject land.

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:18522 WP No. 21731 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Per contra, Smt. Savitramma, learned

¶56

Additional Government Advocate appearing for the

¶57

respondent-State submitted that the land in question has been earmarked for the purpose of the graveyard as well

¶58

as for the waste management and the said land is reserved for the public interest and therefore, no interference called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶59

Having taken note of the submission made by

¶60

the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is relevant to observe that the petitioners have not averred or established any legal right to challenge the impugned order produced at Annexure-P. It is also not disclosed in the writ petition that the petitioners are adjacent landowners, as such, they do not have legal right to challenge the establishment of waste management unit

¶61

and graveyard in Barya Village, Belthangadi Taluk. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that, the land in

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18522 WP No. 21731 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

question referred to at Annexure-P is government land and therefore, it is my considered opinion that, the petitioners herein have no legal right or claim against the land in question, nor do they possess any lawful entitlement or interest over the said land. In that view of the matter, I do not find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders produced at Annexure-N and P passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, earmarking the land for the purpose of waste management as well as graveyard at Barya Village, Belthangadi Taluk. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶65

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶66

SB

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt Avvamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Avvamma v. the State of Karnataka

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

Shantaveerappa Vs Town Municipal Council

Rajanna Vs Town Municipal Council

Sri Mallappa Vs the Authorized Officer

D Narendranath Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Nyanamurthy Achari Vs the Tahshildar

S Mohamed Adil Vs the State of Karnataka