Smt Rajamma Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:41440 WP No. 9785 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9785 OF 2022 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A TAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI-577224 HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, P.B. ROAD DAVANAGERE-577501.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, NOW HONNALI SUB-DIVISION, HONNALI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501.

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR HONNALI TALUK,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41440 WP No. 9785 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501.

¶20

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT IN OPEN COURT ON 06.06.2022 WITH COURT PERMISSION

¶21

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DAVANAGERE JILLA PANCHAYAT LOKIKERE ROAD DAVANAGERE-577501.

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER HONNALI TALUK PANCHAYAT HONNALI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501.

¶23

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MASADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT MASADI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577501.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; SRI. G.M.GADLINGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.6)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION DATED 30.03.2022 PASSED BY THE 7^TH RESPONDENT, THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MASADI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, IN ITS RESOLUTION NO.II, WHICH PERTAINS TO ALLOTMENT OF SITES, IN SY.NO.13/1 TAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41440 WP No. 9785 of 2022

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 30.03.2022 passed by respondent No.7 in so far as it relates to allotment of sites in Sy.No.13/1 of Takkanahalli Village, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District.

¶33

(i) The petitioner contends that the land in Sy.No.13/1 of Takkanahalli Village measures 9 acres 27 guntas and that 3 acres was granted to one Sri. Sevyanaik and another 3 acres was granted to one Sri. Erappa in terms of an order dated 15.11.1975. The petitioner claims that he is unauthorisedly cultivating 2 acres 20 guntas and that he had filed an application for grant of aforesaid land. The application was rejected by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation and petitioner has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere, in ULND/CR:10/2019-20. The Assistant Commissioner in terms of an order dated 07.02.2022, allowed the appeal and remanded the case back to the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation, Honnali.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:41440 WP No. 9785 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

(ii) The Masadi Grama Panchayat on coming to know of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has passed a resolution dated 30.03.2022 that sites may be formed in Sy.No.13/1 of Takkanahalli Village. The petitioner claims that this resolution is illegal and attempts to belittle his rights. The petitioner is therefore, before this court challenging the resolution.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that resolution cannot be given effect to until application filed by the petitioner is considered by the Committee in accordance with law.

¶39

The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner has right of an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained. Besides this, he contends that by the impugned resolution the Panchayat has only recommended formation of sites in Sy.No.13/1 of Takkanahalli Village and therefore, rights if any of the petitioner is not affected.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:41440 WP No. 9785 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The learned counsel for respondent No.7 reiterated the above submission and submitted that the resolution merely recommends formation of sites in the aforesaid survey number and sites are yet to be formed and allotted and therefore, rights of the petitioner is not affected.

¶44

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.7.

¶45

By the impugned resolution, the Panchayat has proposed to form sites in Sy.No.13/1 of Takkanahalli Village for allotment to homeless and siteless persons under Ashraya scheme. The resolution has proceeded on the assumption that the land has vested in the State Government. However, it is clear from the documents produced by the petitioner that an application for regularization of unauthorized cultivation is pending consideration before the Committee, which is yet to take a decision. Therefore, the Panchayat could not have construed the land bearing Sy.No.13/1 of Takkanahalli Village as available for formation of sites and allotment to homeless

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:41440 WP No. 9785 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

and siteless persons. The Panchayat must have awaited the outcome of the proceedings of the Committee and could not have passed the resolution that has the effect of undermining the rights of the petitioner.

¶50

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed

¶51

in part. It is declared that the impugned resolution dated 30.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.7 - Panchayat shall not be given effect to until the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his unauthorized cultivation of Sy.No.13/1 of Takkanahalli Village, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, is considered by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation. It is open for the Panchayat to take appropriate steps after application of the petitioner is finally disposed off in accordance with law.

¶52

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶53

PMR

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Smt Rajamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rajamma v. the 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

Sri M N Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Canara Bank Vs Yathish Sagar H

Mrs. K.Jayalakshmi Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Dr.Girish K Nashi Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lingayat Education Society Vs Town Municipal Council

Sri L Kumaraguru Vs Sri Sathyanarayana