Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mahadevappa Gyanappa Walikar ( ... vs State Of Karnataka 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.107826 OF 2014 (LR)

BETWEEN
1.   MAHADEVAPPA GYANAPPA WALIKAR (HOSAMANI)
     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1A.   GYANAPPA
      S/O. LATE MAHADEVAPPA
      GYANAPPA WALIKAR (HOSAMANI)
      AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
      R/O. HIRE HONAKUNTTI
      POST: JUMBALDINNI, TQ: HUNGUND,
      DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                               ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      R/BY ITS SECRETARY
      DEPT. OF REVENUE (LAND REFORMS)
      M S BUILDING,
      BANGALORE -560 001.

2.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
      BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT.

3.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      BAGALKOT SUB DIVISION,
      DISTRICT: BAGALKOT

4.    THE TAHASILDAR,
      HUNGUND,
      TALUK: HUNGUND,
                                  2




      DISTRICT: BAGALKOT
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 04.12.2013 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-R)
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON 07.09.2007
(ANNEXUE-K) AND TO ISSUE RE-GRANT CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF
LANDS BEARING SY.NO.59/1A, 59/1C, 2 ACRES 24 GUNTAS AND 11
ACRES 27 GUNTAS, RESPECTIVELY, HIRE-HUNAKUNTTI VILLAGE,
HUNGUND TALUK. DIRECT THE RESPONDNET AUTHORITIES TO RE-
GRANT THE LAND TO THE PETITIONER.


      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The petitioner claiming to be in possession of the land bearing Survey Nos.59/1A and 59/1C measuring 2 acre 24 guntas and 11 acre 27 guntas, respectively, situated at Hire- Hunakatti village, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District, submitted an application under Section 4(1) of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (for short "the Act") for re-granting the lands in question in his favour. However, the said application came to be rejected by the respondent No.3 on the ground that the lands in question have already been re-granted in favour of the original Inamdars. Hence, this writ petition. 3

2. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the original Inamdars are not entitled for re-grant of the lands in question and the petitioner, who is in possession, is entitled for re-grant of the lands in question under Section 4(1) of the Act.

3. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents/State would submit that the lands in question have already been re-granted in favour of the original Inamdars and as such, the application submitted by the petitioners is not maintainable.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties.

5. After commencing of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950, all Watan lands including the lands in question were vested with the government free from all encumbrance. Admittedly, the holder of the lands, who were granted with the lands in lieu of the services rendered by them to the government were re-granted with the lands in question under the provisions of the said Act. It is thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 4(1) of the Act, to 4 re-grant the lands in question in his favour. The respondent- authority having regard to the fact that the lands in question have already been re-granted in favour of the Inamdars, whose name was mutated in the revenue records has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner.

6. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-R, dated 04.12.2013.

7. With the above said observation, the writ petition is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the re-grant order made in favour of the original Inamdars, in accordance with law.

8. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE yan