Karnataka High Court
Sri Muralidhar Bapat vs State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.37285/2013 (KLR-REG)
BETWEEN:
Sri.Muralidhar Bapat,
S/o.Narayana Rao Bapat,
Aged about 63 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o.Shindly Village,
Chandragutti Hobli,
Sorab Taluk-577 429,
Shimoga District. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.S.V.Prakash, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Rept. By Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-01.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Sagar Sub-Division,
Sagar,
Shimoga District-577 401.
2
3. The Tahasildar,
Sorab Taluk, Sorab-577 429,
Shimoga District.
4. The Committee for regularization
of Un-authorized occupation of Government
lands for Sorab Taluk,
Shimoga District,
Represented by its Secretary,
The Tahsildar,
Sorab Taluk,
Shimoga District-577 429. ...Respondents
(By Sri T.P.Srinivasa, AGA)
********
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to
consider & dispose of the application made by the petitioner
U/Section 94-B of the Act, seeking regularization of his
unauthorized occupation & cultivation of the land measuring
4 Acres in Sy.No.27 of Shindly Village, Chandragutti Hobli,
Sorab Tq., Shimoga Dist. by allowing this WP.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
In this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 94-B of the 3 Karnataka Land Revenue Act for regularization of unauthorized cultivation in respect of 3 acres/4 acres of land in Sy.No.27 of Shindly village.
2. The petitioner claims that he was cultivating 3 acres/4 acres of land in Sy.No.27 of Shindly village. He has filed form No.53 seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation. The Taluk Surveyor has prepared the sketch as per Annexure-E which shows that the petitioner is in possession of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.27 of Shindly village. The application of the petitioner has not been considered by respondents 3 and 4. Therefore, this writ petition.
3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application of the petitioner for regularization of unauthorized cultivation has not been considered and therefore, the respondents 3 and 4 may be directed to consider the application of the petitioner. 4
4. The learned AGA submitted that respondents 3 and 4 may be directed to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. The petitioner claims that he was cultivating 3 acres/4 acres of land in Sy.No.27 of Shindly village. He has filed form No.53 seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation. Annexure-D is the acknowledgement. The Taluk Surveyor has prepared the sketch as per Annexure-E which shows that the petitioner is in possession of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.27 of Shindly village. The respondents 3 and 4 being the concerned authorities ought to have been considered the application of the petitioner. But, they have failed to do so. Therefore, it is necessary to direct respondents 3 and 4 to consider the application of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents 3 and 4 are directed to consider the application of the petitioner filed in form No.53 seeking regularization of 5 his unauthorized cultivation, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of constitution of respondent No.4.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM