High Court Karnataka High Court

B N Nagaraj vs The Deputy Commissioner on 15 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
B N Nagaraj vs The Deputy Commissioner on 15 October, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
' ~  (BY SR1. RKUMAR, HCGP}

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATES THIS THE 15'?" DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A s BopANhu§fC«L~%CLJ:%%

WRIT PETITION NO. 29738/ 2009    

BETWEEN:   

B N NAGARAJ s/0 NARASIMHASHE'FTY'"

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS  

OCC: AGRICULTURIST

R/O BALASAGODU '19.,  »  ~ - -' 
SAGAR DIST, SHIMOQA    ..;~;?,E_f1':f,f1oNE:R

(BY SR1. RAJENDRA s "A1§KAL§§c)T1,"  _
AND:   '  V' .' "

1   .CC'.IT\'/H'/[_It"3S3jONER
SHIMOGA mAsTR.1_(:f}:j " 
SFI.I_MOGA». ' ' " '

2 .-- -THE C0M1vz1'm3:E FOR REGULARISATION

~  O35' UNAU-THQ_RJ.sED OCCUPANTS
SAGAR TALUKA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT
  REPT._1':2Y ITS SECRETARY THE
-- TAHSELDAAR SAGAR TALUKA
* SHIMOGA DISTRICT

3  '1*:};E"fAHs1LDAR,sAGARTALUK
" I ...RESPONDEN'IS

"5:



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
8: 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER
TO: DIRECT THE R2, TO CONSEDER 8: PASS NECESSARY
ORDERS ON THE APPLECATIONS DT. 14.1.99 8?... 2.'i,Ci}.V,99
VIDE ANN--C 8: D WITH A FURTHER  TO

REGULARIZE THE UN AUTHORIZED CULTIVATEDTN   _
OF LAND IN SURVEY NUMBER 36 OF  '

VILLAGE SAGAR TQ. SHEMOGA DESTRICT. _. ~  .. __ '~

THES WRIT PETITION COMING  FOR .i'.RELi§VivINABY'

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT THE FOLL=O'WfE'NG: ._

Sri R.KumaI, V1-egirned"'C§:re'i"ni11eIit'"Advccate to
accept the notice  to 3 and file
memo of appieataiice   weeks from

today.

2. T'h__e petiti.ci1.er:'Di_$ 'before this Court seeking for

issue; 'of Tm-andamus to direct the second

 respondent/_Eco:nmittee to consider and pass necessary

‘At:-iiT(D.i.e.:’sT applications dated 14.1.1999 and

21. E999.i}ii”hich are at Annexures-C and D.

4

vs

3. The petitioner claims to be in possession and

cultivation of three acres of land in Sy.Nc;36 of

Baiasagodu village, Sagar Taluk. Shimoga _,.:I’;.<1

this regard, the petitioner is said t0_..haVe':ti:1ed it '*9

application seeking regularisation of his *u_r1'ai1t.'iorise(i.

occupation and cultivation' as per'._Annex=,rres–dC and

The said application is 'processed
further by drawing and
the same is said to the second
respondent] relies on
Annexnresf, 'V second respondent
__ the consideration of the same
as far 2001. But, thereafter no

decijsiorz. has taken. Therefore, the present petition

, is«fiied_ Asee–ki:'r:g_ for a direction as stated above.

'The learned Government Advocate would

V indicate' that though Annexure~E primafacie indicates

i

We

that the papers were placed before the second
respondent/ committee, the fact as to whether
subsequently any decision has been taken or not is not

forthcoming since there is no other material

available. Hence it is contended

verification of these aspects of:'t}ie"matter;

action in accordance with law wou_ld'–haVe t'ak'en*..

5. In the light of the pa.bVove.”‘–the third.” respondent
herein at the outset status of the
appiication of tl*ie_pet’itior1’e;1′ 13.7.2001, the

date on respondent/committee had
adjourried! fiirther’.consi.deration of the application. If

for .a’nyiireasoVn”,»._the said application has been considered

.A ti1.e¥reaji”ter-,.:the decision taken shall be intimated to the

H needless to mention that if the said

j app’iicatioiifhas_ not been disposed of till today, the third

respondent shail take steps to bring it to the notice of

al

v:

the second respondent/committee as and when the
committee is constituted. The committee shall
thereafter consider and dispose of the application within

a period of four months from the date of its constittitltion.

Until the application is considered and _

already not disposed of, the status–quo~’with.. V.

possession shall be maintainedhi

ln terms of the above; the petition stafidvs…dls1:’5osedVV:t’

of. No order as to Costs. ‘ xi: