Karnataka High Court
Smt.Danavva vs The Deputy Commissioner on 9 December, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.108299/2016 &
W.P. No.100349/2017 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN
1. SMT.DANAVVA
W/O SHANKRAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NANDAGAON VILLAGE,
MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT
2. MALLAYYA
S/O BASAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NANDAGAON VILLAGE,
MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK L.KALLED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIHARSH A.
NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,
BAGALKOTE
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
JAMKHANDI,
DIST BAGALKOTE
2
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
MUDHOL TALUKA, MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 25.05.2013 AND THE
COMMUNICATION DATED 25.05.2013 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
AS PER ANNEXURES-D AND E RESPECTIVELY; AND ISSUE A
MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-GRANT THE LANDS
BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS BY ENTERING THE NAMES OF THE
PETITIONERS IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY LAND
BEARING SY.NO.95/4 MEASURING 2 ACRES 34 GUNTAS SITUATED AT
MUDHOL VILLAGE DISTRICT BAGALKOT AND R.S. NO.95/5A/1
MEASURING 25 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MUDHOL VILLAGE, DISTRICT
BAGALKOT.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The ancestors of the petitioners were granted land bearing Sy.No.95/4 measuring 2 acres 34 guntas and the land bearing R.S.No.95/5A/1 measuring 25 guntas both situated at Mudhol Village of Bagalkot District. After the commencement of Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), the lands in question were resumed with the Government. The petitioners claiming to be 3 the legal representatives of the grantee of the lands in question submitted an application with respondent No.3 on 15.04.2013 to re-grant the lands in question under Section 4(1) of the Bombay Act. The said application came to be rejected on the ground that until further orders are passed by the Government there is no provision to deposit the land revenue so as to seek re-grant the lands in question. Taking exception to the same, these writ petitions are filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled for re-grant of the lands in question in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act, however, respondent No.3 has issued the impugned communications rejecting their application on the ground that there is no provision for depositing the land revenue so as to entitle them for an order of re-grant.
3. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioners having not submitted the application with 4 respondent No.3 within the time specified, respondent No.3 has rightly rejected the said application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners submitted application on 15.04.2013 to re-grant the lands in question in their favour. In the absence of any government order extending the time for filing an application for re-grant, the impugned communication issued by respondent No.3 cannot be faulted with. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned communication issued by respondent No.3.
6. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioners to submit an application, if the time for filing an application under Section 4(1) of the Act is extended.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms