Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivanna K vs State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 12073 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 12073 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVANNA K
S/O VEERABACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/A KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE
SULIBELE HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562129
Digitally signed by ...PETITIONER
JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
NH 207
DODDABALLAPURA-DEVANAHALLI HIGHWAY
-2-
WP No. 12073 of 2022
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PINCODE-562110
3. TAHSILDAR
HOSAKOTE TALUK
HOSAKOTE-562114
4. LAND GRANT COMMITTEE FOR
REGULARIZATION FOR
UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF LANDS
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE-562214
REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADESHWARAN C.N., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING ANNEXURE-A ORDER IN LND(J-
53)CR.174/2021.22 DATED 09.03.2022 BE DECLARING
THE FORM NO.53 FILED BY THE WIFE OF PETITIONER
DATED 23.11.1998 IN RESPECT OF THE SY.NO.3
MEASURING 2 ACRES OF YENAGUNTE VILLAGE, SULIBELE
HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK IS INELIGIBLE AN REJECTED
AND FURTHER DIRECTION TO TAHSILDAR AND ADLR TO
CONDUCT THE SPOT INSPECTION AND EVICT THE
PETITIONER FROM THE LAND AND THEREAFTER INSTALL
-3-
WP No. 12073 of 2022
THE BOARD AS A GOVERNMENT LAND IN THE PROPERTY
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Official Memorandum dated 09.03.2022 at Annexure 'A' passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, while rejecting the application dated 23.11.1998 filed by the petitioner's wife on the ground that the land in question is within the prohibited distance and directing eviction of petitioner from the said land.
3. This Court had an occasion to consider similar issue in Writ Petition No.20722/2021, in the case of SRI R. MAREGOWDA AND OTHERS Vs. TAHSILAR, BANGALORE -4- WP No. 12073 of 2022 NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK, wherein this Court has considered all the aspects and has held that the application is required to be considered in terms of the law prevailing as on the date of the application. This Court has upheld the contention of the petitioner that the geographical jurisdiction of the then Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike was much smaller than what it was in the year 2020-2021. The distance of 18 kms is required to be measured from the boundary of the Municipal Corporation as it existed as on the date of the application. Admittedly the application in Form No.53 was made by the petitioner on 23.11.1998. Accordingly, the application is said to have been placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District and the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned Official Memorandum dated 09.03.2022 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the land is within the prohibited distance of 18 kms. from the boundary of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.
-5-WP No. 12073 of 2022
4. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned official memorandum dated 09.03.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The Tahasildar is directed to place the application of the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner for regularization of unauthorized occupation and Deputy Commissioner shall consider the application having regard the jurisdiction of the then Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike as it existed in the year 1998, measure the distance and consider the application of the petitioner and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
-6-WP No. 12073 of 2022 Four weeks time is granted to learned Additional Government Advocate to file memo of appearance.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-