Sri. Veerabhadrappa Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.06.2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 IN NO. DARAKHASTU 156/2022-23 AS PER ANNEXURE-K; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION FOR SALE OR ALIENATION FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS IMPOSED WHILE ISSUING THE GRANT CERTIFICATE AND TO CONDUCT PHODI OF LAND IN SY.NO. 21 OF HONNENAHALLI KAVAL VILLAGE AND ALSO GIVE PERMISSION TO PETITIONER TO SELL THE SAID LAND.

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:19469 WP No. 3355 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the Endorsement dated 29.06.2022 issued by respondent No.4 in Darakhastu 156/2022-23, as per Annexure-K.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Sy.No.197 measuring 20 guntas of land situated at Karagada Village, Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk was granted in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-A. It is stated at Annexure- Grant Order, that the grantee shall not alienate the property for a period of 15 years. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the land in question was re-granted on 10.03.2022 as per Annexure-F and as such the petitioner has approached respondent No.4 seeking permission to sell the land in question since the bar of 15 years stated in the original Grant Order has

¶34

been completed. The said application made by the petitioner was rejected by Endorsement dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure-K) and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19469 WP No. 3355 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the condition imposed by the respondent - authority as per the Grant Certificate at Annexure-B dated 06.04.2002 and submitted that the impugned endorsement at Annexure-K requires to be rejected in this writ petition.

¶38

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-K and submitted that since the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition specified therein and thereafter, re-grant order has been passed as per Annexure-F and since the re-grant order has been passed on 10.03.2022, wherein it is stated that the petitioner cannot alienate the property for a period of 25 years and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the Grant Certificate dated 06.04.2002 (Annexure-B), wherein the Government has imposed condition that the petitioner cannot alienate the property for a period of 15 years and in that view of the matter, as the re-grant order has been passed

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19469 WP No. 3355 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

during 2022 as per Annexure-F, I am of the view that, the endorsement issued by respondent No.4 at Annexure-K requires to be set aside and the period of alienation has to be taken into consideration from the date of original Grant Certificate as per Annexure-B. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶45

(ii) Endorsement dated 29.06.2022 in Darakhastu

¶46

156/2022-23 (Annexure-K), passed by respondent No.4 is set aside and the respondent is directed to issue necessary permission order to the petitioner to alienate the property, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶47

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶48

sac

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Sri. Veerabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Veerabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka

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

Kum Kavya Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Philip Stephen Vs the State of Karnataka

M.K. Chandrashekhara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N. S. Gangadhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Lakshmipathi Vs State of Karnataka