High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri V Lakshmana vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri V Lakshmana vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIEA AT 

zwrnn THIS Tim 1 1th am: or   

BEFORE   

T32-IE HOPFBLE mt. JUSTICE 

wan' PETITION aw.   
BETWEEN:   h'  ii

1 SRIVLAKSHMANA 
gasp Asotrr 42 YEARS,'      
510 SR!  *  %

R/AT mL:$1~mgALE' 
nanaammz  3mARAHA"LLx imam
BANf;}A1.{)Rl~1.*E;A_.sf£ B1,;

BANGLAQRE  .149; x % " 

2 sm VENimTAR£e.Y1§£P3.
Aezm A§.BOUT.. {rs YEARS.
 -  s;'§**Lé.afI'E SAN" H «-- "APPA
A war ELLISEIIVALE VXLLAGE
 _ E3OI2II)A,{§*IITB$I--.1'O3T
"  fiosu BANGALORE
EAST rAL;§x,3A1mA:.oRE 562 149.

 

... PETITIGNERS

" n a %   h  %  (sf fsrifilfi smmamnv. 3

   1.0 Tim STATE or mmwarmm
 BY rrs SECRETARY,
mzvmmm nmymrunm,
BAEGALORE.



2 THE DEPUTY conmssromn
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.

3 THETAI~ISII.DA'R      V 
Bmemom mam' TALUK, K.R.?UF_.fiB?i,    * '
BANGALORE.    *

4 THE STATE HOUSE omrxcma, 
HOSKGTZE POLICE STATION, 
ROSKOTE,     
BANGALORE D1s*rRIc'i2  _ 

(By Sri:R.KUMAR,~v}E§'}Ci-P|:=A__ g  

THIS W.P;-FIL;ED  Awrfcnm 226 & 227 OF
THE c;o:4s*r;z*rU'1€1cm  gm LX315. FRAYING TO*- DIRECT
THE RmPo1s1_n:9;NT V'Z§'.f€!   ISSHE GRNAT
CERTIFICATE  TI-IE FE':?.IT1O£;ERs IN TERMS or TI-IE
IIIECISIGRS TAZKEEEV 33.' 761-113 commrrsm FOR
Rmumnsmwxox o1? UNA:s'JTH0msEn OCCUPATION on
22.m..1993"«:A,s rm mz=*...sGRAPH No.3 comramnn IN
RES?E{2$f 0? f'mEg GOVERXNIMENT LANDS IN SY.,R'O.9

'canoes: f:e*s.3,.*1.8";  1 ACRE 5 GIINTA3,
,SITUATE';I}'.__ %A*:*."« %.311.fEs11rvATE vH.Lm':m, amaxnaanu
 EQBLI, aaueawxgg mas': TALUK, BAHGALORE;

..   This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing

 tlxjiisitiayg the Chart made the following:

ORDER

grievance of the petitioners before the Court is

ixzhe-y are in unauthorised cultivation in Biock £10.18,

Sy. No.9 of Bileshivale village, Bidarahalli Iiobli,

3

Bangalore East ‘i’aiuk since 1966 and that they lmve filed
an application for regularisation of the land in their

occupetioe. The application filed by the petitione:e’e’i:ii?wfe

not been considered by the Committee. Accord_if_i:ig’ _

petitioners, the Committee has passed a u w

refer the matter to the Government»._seekéi?nj4gtee

whether the land situated in gee; beiit. ¢ou1e%5e;

er not and also on the ground___u_i:fi:e .t-.. situated

within 18 oyprortunity to the
Petitieners.V:”*.,, i

2. einee the application of the
tiiiéie’s*——–«Seetien 94-A of the Karnataka

not been considered, the present

“pnetitieti ,i:s«fiiedvii:te.::issue a writ of Mandamus directing the

–~«.«fez.-§:_$endent” issue a. grant certificate and tea netify the

for the year 2005 to 201.5 in accordance

. leriv.

-. 3. Admittedly, the application filed by the

jietitioners are neither rejected not considered. If the

Q9″

lands claimed by the petitioners can be utilisod

the parameters fixed for regularisation

is the duty of the Committee to ragulggmt

if the petitioners fails to satisfy 3ggt;¢=i~’.’§Ai=:”i}gi:t¥:3§l::i’i:3’a.rV

then it is for the Committed-_t–_tu._rejoct. thAo’-.:a§é§iio€tion;”‘

Since such a thing is not.fo!!owodL,*.tho W”rfiitvvPotition has
to be aliowed. A’ t V’ tt

4. Acootdingijf -thegz’ ailowed and at

auction has to be issues}. tooooconsider
the application statedVv:”‘A_to by the
petitioners for regulm’-iso’tio:;” unauthorised
cultivation in; wig; a. period of
thee mouth ’till thw the parties to

tam

Sd/-

Judge