High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Narayanamma vs State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt Narayanamma vs State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2010
Author: B.S.Patil
.. «.  Aged 50 years,

._ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF NOVEMBER. 2019

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S. PA1fIfii."' '  '- " '

W.P.Nos.35167~192/2019 (KLR--.REGj' ,  '
BE'I"W'EEN: A A h

1. Smt.Narayar1amma,
W/0 Venkataramanachari,
Aged 48 years,

2. Sri. D.Muniraju,  VA
S/0 Doddarnuniyappa, ._  .
Aged 45 years,   _  '

3. Sri   
S/0 Doddaihtinijfappa,«__--...__    '
Aged 50 years.  A' '

4. Sri M1_.1niyae1iari,_'V  'V
S / 0 Shankaracha1'ie',d  A'
Aged 45 years,'  ' '

5. Sri Sriniva'sa._1:V2eddy, 
S / Verxkatappa, . V H

 Bjgfegakateisdisappa,
'S/or'BYCh'apIi3¥
Aged 49 .yea1's,

Sri R".D_amodaran.
"Sr/.0 C.A. Ramakrishna,

 Aged 50 years,

  Smt.Radhamma.
'  "W/0 Srinivasachari,

Aged 48 years,



d A  'Aged 41-5 years,

9. Smt.Ruckman1yam.ma,
W/0 Subran1ar11',
Aged 51 years,

10.811 H.Mun1yappa,
S/0 Huchappa,
Aged 55 years,

1 1.Sr1 Venkataswamy Reddy,
S / 0 Chinnaiah,
Aged 45 years,

12.Sri Rajanna,
8/ 0 Chlnnappa,

Aged 44 years,

13.Sr1 B.Ch0wdappa,
S / 0 Byehappa,
Aged 48 years,

14.Sri Munirajzr;   
S/0 Gud1ban.dappda_, . '
Aged 45 years_;'*--. " 

15.smt.r§agaffin::g_.,   .
W/0 Buddareddy}'~ M
Aged 54 years,  ' '

16.Sri Ravi,  W *
S/c§_Papaiah, " 

5.7 V.VSrr1t

«W/o Anlcappa;
Aged 6,e3.ye4;;rs,

A ' ~ 2 _ A '1.8.Sri D..N_arayanaswamy,
, "S/.9 Ddddapilla Reddy.
"  Aged 45 years,

A'  19fSri Anjanappa,
 " S/0 Papaiah,

Aged 46 years,



20.Srnt.I-Ianumakka,
W/0 Chmappa,
Aged 53 years,

21.82': Krishnappa,
S / 0 iaie Chlnappa @ Voteppa,
Aged 53 years,

22.Sri Anjanaehari,
S/0 Chinappachari,   
Aged 40 years, 

23.Sr1 Narayanaswamy,
S / 0 late Ajjappa,
Aged 44 years,

24.811 Gang1reddy,
S / 0 Ramareddy,
Aged 60 years,

25.811 S.Sr1n1va_saehar1,  _   . _ 
S/0 Seenaeh.;3,r1,ge~r' _ _   4_  " 
Aged 46 Y?Ea1'5¢'];..V  "   ' '

S/0 I5';-Mur1i1*eddyt',-» % 
Aged 45-uyears;  V '

26.811 13/: .Naraya:;_asWam*r,' ' 

All are res"1ude.rv1ts 
Channigarayapura Village,

" V.  - Kasabaslicbli, Mahir Taluk,

» ;1:;o1a.r.,:::sta::e~t. _  PETITIONERS

( By Adv.)

1 ,,ND,rr

 "   " State  Of Karnataka,

_ uR_e'f1j.by its Secretary,
7.VRe*s7enue Department,
H FM.S.Bui1ding, Bangalore.

 2. The Deputy Commissioner,

Kolar District, Kolar.



3. The Asst.Commissioner,
Kolar Sub--Division,
Kolar.

4. The President,
Land Grant Committee,
Malur, Kolar District.

5. The Tahasildar,

Ma1ur'I'a1uk,Ma1ur.  'R.EaE':;5:?01$Iti:):lt"t31\fCl'fis'-.i'.V  V

{By Sri R.0mkumar, ASA)

These Writ petitionsare filed  Artic1es..226 and 227
of the Constitution of Ind--i,a"ppra§/ing. tozdirect the 41" respondent

to consider the representation ‘ofjfthe petitioner in accordance
with law, vide Ar1nexures–D1_”to_l323._arid»etcfi; –.

These “for.:Pre1iminary Hearing
this day, the §Co1J.r_t ‘made t.h.e__ “i’o11oWin_g:7_ »

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘

1. Learned AtdtditionaiGovemnient Advocate takes notice for

respondents. 4_ ”

:,_Athe..r.ri’1atter a short compass, the same is taken

t””t1ip”for’fi1’i–aidisposal with the consent of the learned counsel for
the ‘parties.’ ‘ ‘i._

writ petitions are filed by the petitioners

ti by the inaction on the part of the respondent-

anthorities in not considering the representations made by them

No.53 seeking regularisation of the unauthorised

s 5 4;;

occupation of Government lands in terms of Section 94A of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

4. The case of the petitioners is that

application in Form No.53 as contemplated under__jR;ile

of the Karnataka Land Revenue .,r<a1es;. p_1t366.« fV"?_hey*–7i'1aV'e b

produced the copies of the said app1i.caL,ions

Tahsildar collectively vide Anne;:_uresmDl to have

also produced endorsements "by the "Office of the
Tahsildar collectively vide to evidence the
receipt of the applications in Form No.53.

5. Learnecl co’un’s’el~V._for–.:–1r1é*.petitioners submits that as the

petitioners havefhfiledgs.Vthevllapplicatlions by complying with the
requirement of plaw.__tii.eauthorities were not justified in failing to

take any. decision on thelsame.

wéidditional Government Advocate submits that

the €l_ommiti;ee .i’o.r:~’regularisation of unauthorised occupation of

l Gove’r_r_1me»nt.vlAl~ands is formed in Malur Taluk and if the

‘ énpetitioneirsthave presented their applications in accordance with

p:.ti1e’~re.nquired procedure, the same will be placed before the

VA Vfilvornmittee and appropriate decision in accordance with law will

i A” ifiaken.

_. 6 W

7. in the light of the submission made by the learned
Additional Government Advocate, these writ petitions are
disposed of issuing a direction to the Tahsildar, Malurfiaiulc ~–

respondent No.5 herein to scrutinise the app1ication.s”‘*an’d’.’piece

it before the Land Grant Committee formed forhtihe

consideration Within a period of thre:’e’Arn’o11th’sp “the da’teH’of

receipt of a copy of this order and theA:Corn_rriittee’vsha11 taiee

decision in the matter within a ‘fv..1r’L=her period,o_”f_. three”rnonths’

thereafter.

8. Learned Additional’Gofieirnrnpent is permitted to
fiie memo of

Ed/-3
HEDGE

A. …..