Karnataka High Court
Shri L Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
Dated this the 3*" day of August, 2010.' B 1} f
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A:§'«IA}'§Dt.BYR,}XRE§)i§Y_"
Writ Petition 2t1709V ;'ettr20r0rt
Between: B
Sri L Kumar S/0 Linganrm
52 yrs, R/a Narsapur Viliage' V _ - -
Srigandadakaval, Yes_hWanthpt1ra~.I~I0bl§.e '
Bangalore North '_I'a'tu_k'_r 1 I
Viswarteedam Poet, Banga~1ore 91 _.- f, B ' "" " Petitioner
(By Sri B ,?<0epe.Sh;. ;5;ttt.t.) B
And: B B BB
1 State of BI{-arnataiga A¥--'--._By*~Chief Secretary
Revenue Department, M S Building
V_Banga10m I .......
Q Bangaitdre Urban District
'Bang»alore'
B " " 5 _ trattstiaat
"' _B~anga1ore South Taluk
B ._ " 'Bangalore
S eirc um-s.tance»s. _
4 Revenue Inspector
Bangalore South Taiuk
Bangalore
5 Taluk Surveyor
Bangalore South Taluk
Bangalore Re_s§po'nd¢nt$ii. .
(By Sri R Kurnar, GP)
Writ Petition is filed under A226/227th ¢'rsiy&i:e
Constitution praying to quash the. endorsement datedy7'.fi_.2010'~--"'rtp
annexure Q issued by the 3" respondent, etc." V
The Petition COIT1lng;_.(.)n fog-{'re'l'infinary Heavringi: this day, Court made the following: A V Thei"'~_peti_tion_i' comiin.gS'ci..oh._. for preliminary hearing, is considered for"~final. cE.isi'osal"ihavin re ard to the facts and V. _ V_ F' g g S 2 The petitioner claims to be an ex-serviceman who had retired it 4A"fro"n1 service--- in the year 1989. in the wakeaof the Government of having invited applications for grant of land to exw S ~ser"vicen1en, as a measure of rehabilitation in the year 1989, and, 3 had further directed the Tahsildar, the 3" respondent herein, to expedite the consideration of the application. The Tahsildar, in turn, had directed the Revenue Inspector 'to survey the 'land in Sy.No.8 of Sulikere Village, Bangalore North Taluk'_§Wiio',;'~i.n:'turn,A had submitted a report to state that the petitioner wrasv-ciulrtivating the V. land measuring 4.00 acres in the said saryeyrnuimijrer for'theV:past::i'3 years and his application relateciito-._the s'arne,an'd iithere.fore, his-"
application could be favourably cponsiiideredr Cio'py,_gofg..that report and the sketch is annexed toitlie gilihough the Revenue Inspector had .such'--a' report. to affirm that the petitioner was indeed _cult_iv'ating'V'the'said, ljandifor over years, the Tahsildar has now _issued"an 'end(;rse--:_nent to state that the application filed by zfthe petitio1.ner «is rejected; or; the ground that the Land Grant consideration of the application, has negated i the same. It tsihis which is sought to be challenged. ""'I"he learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that, from indicating that the La Grant Committee has turned down the application of the petitioner, there is no other-"reason indicated namely, whether the petitioner is being denied' of the land on account of ineligibility or if it was _f0.1',tlie reason that no land was available or if there was any otherisach Valid ireavs_on.,,foi' negating the application.
5 The learned counsel there is material to demonstrate thatéland exceeding isifaiifailable in Survey No.8 for has been granted to several personsii"illheiie«is as to why the petitioner ishotiléd that he has been cultivating for the past 13 yiea-rs"as_i:epo_rtedi by the Revenue Inspector to the ii'<nowle,d:ge2,.Ao,f the Tahsiitiaii and therefore, would seek interference of an appropriate direction to the concerned, to it re~consi._derv_tiie_applicationof the petitioner and, to assign good and " ~.zal'id Ifciasonsiieven if the application is to be rejected. 3