High Court Karnataka High Court

Khoorgalli Gram Panchayath vs Sri Marigowda @ Mari on 9 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Khoorgalli Gram Panchayath vs Sri Marigowda @ Mari on 9 April, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE IriI(}H COURT 'OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 9": DAY OF APRIL  % ; %] f   _

I:5i3.'.FORl:'3

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE .#§«JYP;'#3.C3Lfi€J¥'j;'   f%  %'

WRIT PETITION No.6452,?2

BETWEEN :

MysorcTaluk _.    

By its   .. u  :   ';';';PE'l'I'Z'IONER
«By    

AND:     % x A %

1. Sx~i.Ma;igo§ifda'@.19ia1 i.. 
. SlQ. |§ga.te'C»1'131lLIV€' Gowda,

 "  -Aged V9330-ut-- 78 '
V ' V _  /' at. I-Iutagalh'

,...s ¢

 ~B€hind..Govm*m3;cnt Primary
Sahcacl, ka.a'   Hobli, '
Bciayatii Pest; Mysore Taluk.

."The Dégzijty Commissioner,

%   .My'sc_;;-c District, Mysore.

    jfissistant COIIl1IIi$$0Ilt'3I" ,
"  ..Mysorc  Mysore. 

(By Sri.S.N@'aj, Adv. for R1,
Sri.G.Chandrashckaraiah, AGA for R2 & R3}

 



 the order passed by the Karn%
  accepting the apml of respondent

_ _1, a is produced at Anncxure ‘E’.

‘ villagers of the pctritioncr -» Qama
_ were provided with drinking water from fl

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
2’27 of the Constitution of India with a panym to
the order dated 22.0 1.20137 made in a.pp eal f-._ .,
No.15?/2004 on the file of the KAT, Vida — _

This writ pemim coming on for 3’; ‘

hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day,
ORDER}, A

It is nomtcd that
but unrepresented. learned
Additional Govemm-gut to take
notice for

2. the petitioner to

serve a set:

Panchayath is before this

J’

learned Addifional

submits the disputed land is to be treated

iic’—r’;”7 “8.~ lam” V land, which could be made use of for

_<':{:§I'1'!.=;_ViiI"..:<::t:ion of a tank. J!

.. 5 ..

6. The lmmcd counsel appcming for the pwtiongf
submits that in View of Armexum ‘D’, the entire
of 28 guntas, which was Ilhoot kharab was 4′
two portions 16 guntas and 12 gtmtas ”
guntas was added to the area 9f
one acre. Hence, the
remain kharab and tag 0% cm.

Hence, thc impugned    is
liable to be  T      
7.    appearing for

rcspondcxvjiyig regard to the fact
that the the question of

invoking” j,~§’.11x1e4§1(§.f)(b}’o1;”t1ié:..RL11cs does not arise.

appearing fem’ respondents 2 and

over the property. Thc

Kharah, which is availabie and
it would attract Rule 21(2)(b) of the
Land Revenue Rules. In fact the said

has not been done. Hence, I am of the View

V the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of

the concerned authorities namely the Dcpu

.5.

9. E have been taken throng] the relevant
including Aztmexure ‘B’ and the impugrlcd ordcjf. _
by the Tribunal. Apparently, mspogdgent No’; T V’: ”
that he is the owner of the entire
which would measure 1 acre V
him pursuant to Annexyue
land was treated as a ctj1ti;}é.bleL. added tn
the cultivable a1ea_$13V_Sy.If?6;:e’.r3:}fSf” that
the extent of
16 has proceeded to
grant bf the petifioncr for

const1’uctionVVV’0f_Va.,fifaterA’_taii£{.4 Indeed respondent No.1

eQncer;2ed.at:ti1{ii*iiies were also rwuircd to ascertain as

_~oxt¢nt be treated as phoot kharab

o,.,,….v,Thc éogoinissioncr also shall see that if some
t. of equal dimension is available for
of the tank. The entire exercise shall be
by the Deputy Commissioner within a period of

.four months fiom the date of receipt of this order. The

S ” matter stands mmittcd to the 23*’ respondent. la

-7-

Commissioner, who is competent person to
land in favour of the petitioner for constxuctiof-;”ofi~”.’ If
tank. 011 that score, the impuglcd
Tribunal is liable: to be set-aside
which is made in favour of ‘-‘E
aside. Hence, Anncxure is . »

10. Indeed the 2nd” to
consider the ” “giant of
construction respondent
also an if he chooses to
graznt the of the pctitionc:t’. It

is also open uiV;OIiVI’€:3}V§(:fI1{i~fi,_’f1t.–“”;I\IO. 1 to show that the said

as. _coV_o_’cemp1:otéd:::”uode1* Section 21(2)tb) of me Rules.