Mr. Narayanappa vs Deputy Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Mar 28, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1878683

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1878683
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: R Devdas
Decided On: Mar 28, 2024
Case Number: WP/5787/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mr. Narayanappa

Respondent

Deputy Commissioner

Excerpt

.....contained in sub-rule(6) of rule 17 of the karnataka land reforms rules, 1974,whenever there are more than one application filed seeking occupancy rights in respect of the very same land, the applications have to be clubbed together, heard and thereafter a common order is required to be passed.4. accordingly, the writ petition stands disposedof. the petitioners are directed to appear before the land tribunal, doddaballapur sub-division, hosakote taluk. the 4th respondent is also directed to bring to the notice of the land tribunal, the orders passed by this court that the earlier orders passed by the land tribunal in respect of the petitioners herein on one hand and the 4th respondent on the other hand. the two applications will have to be reconsidered after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. since the dispute is only in respect of -6- sy.no.30, the reconsideration at the hands of the land tribunal shall also be restricted to sy.no.30. the land tribunal will have to issue notice to the tahasildar and thereafter proceed in terms of sub-rule(6) of rule 17 of the act. ordered accordingly. sd/- judge kly ct:ph

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 5787 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MR. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE. THIPPAIAH @ BODAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
1. MR. MUNIPILLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
2. MR. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
3. MR. DODDABACHHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. Digitally signed by 4. MR. CHANDRAPPA DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH S/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA, COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT CHINNANDAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL TALUK - 562 114.
5. MR. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. -2-
6. MR. MUNIYAPPA B. N., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
7. MR. THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
8. MRS. RATNAMMA D/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
9. MRS. MANJULA D/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
10. MRS. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. PETITIONER NO. 5 TO 10 ARE R/AT BHEEMANAPURA VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL TALUK - 562 122. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IST FLOOR, JILLADALITHA BHAVAN, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110. -3-
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUBAGERE - DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203.
3. TAHSILDAR HOSAKOTE - 562 114.
4. MR. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O CHINNATADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, CHINNANDAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVCOATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2024 PASSED IN R.P. NO. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order

dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in Revision Petition No.232/2023 -4- The 4th respondent herein had filed the revision petition calling in question the order at Annexure-B passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-division in No.R.A.(H):32/2021-22, which was an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner herein seeking a direction to the Tahasildar to enter the names of the petitioners in the RTC in respect of 5 acres and 27 guntas in Sy.No.30, New Sy.No.30/1 of Chinnandahalli Village, Jadogenahalli Hobli,

Hosakote Taluk. The 4th respondent challenged the order

of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that he was not made a party respondent to the proceedings and the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner would affect the rights of the 4th respondent, who was also granted occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal.

2. The Deputy Commissioner having noticed such

a contention raised at the hands of the 4th respondent herein set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, while directing the authorities to await the decision of the -5- Land Tribunal where an application was filed by the 4th respondent herein for correction of the earlier orders.

3. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the expressed provisions contained in sub-rule

(6) of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974,

whenever there are more than one application filed seeking occupancy rights in respect of the very same land, the applications have to be clubbed together, heard and thereafter a common order is required to be passed.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed

of. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Hosakote Taluk. The 4th respondent is also directed to bring to the notice of the Land Tribunal, the orders passed by this Court that the earlier orders passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of the petitioners herein on one hand and the 4th respondent on the other hand. The two applications will have to be reconsidered after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Since the dispute is only in respect of -6- Sy.No.30, the reconsideration at the hands of the Land Tribunal shall also be restricted to Sy.No.30. The Land Tribunal will have to issue notice to the Tahasildar and thereafter proceed in terms of sub-rule(6) of Rule 17 of the Act. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE KLY CT:PH

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2024 Same Parties Mr. Narayanappa vs Deputy Commissioner Same Judge R Devdas

Deputy Commissioner Having regard to Occupancy right In respect of high court set aside