Suresh vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jul 01, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1901793

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/1901793
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: E.S.Indiresh
Decided On: Jul 01, 2024
Case Number: WP/12273/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suresh

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....577 501. court of karnataka3. tahsildar hiriyuru,4. committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation, rep. by secretary and tahsildar, …respondents (by smt. b.p. radha, aga) -2- this writ petition is filed under articles 226and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to direct the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner for regularisation and take decision insofar as it relates to 4 acres of land in survey no.48 of obalapura village, javanagondanahalli hobli, hiriyuru taluk, chitradurga district is concerned as per the details shown in form no.57 vide annexure-a in the light of the government order dated 22nd february, 2003 vide annexure-b and pass order for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the petitioner; and etc. this petition coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the court made the following:ordersmt. b.p. radha, learned additional government advocate accepts notice for respondents.2. in this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to consider the application form-57 produced at annexure-a for regularisation of land in question.3. heard smt. pankaja b.c., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and smt. b.p. radha, learned additional government advocate appearing for respondents. -3-4. on careful perusal of the writ papers, the samewould indicate that, nothing is produced by the petitioner before this court with regard to acknowledgement for having filed the application form-57 (annexure-a). hence, issuing writ of mandamus does not arise. accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. sd/- judge ark

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 12273 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SURESH S/O BILIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT B.K. HATTI VILLAGE, KARIYALA, J.G. HALLI HOBLI, …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PANKAJA B.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, Location: High CHITRADURGA - 577 501. Court of Karnataka
3. TAHSILDAR HIRIYURU,
4. COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION, REP. BY SECRETARY AND TAHSILDAR, …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) -2- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARISATION AND TAKE DECISION INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO 4 ACRES OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.48 OF OBALAPURA VILLAGE, JAVANAGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT IS CONCERNED AS PER THE DETAILS SHOWN IN FORM NO.57 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE LIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22ND FEBRUARY, 2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND PASS ORDER FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION OF THE PETITIONER; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to consider the application Form-57 produced at Annexure-A for regularisation of land in question.

3. Heard Smt. Pankaja B.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. -3-

4. On careful perusal of the writ papers, the same

would indicate that, nothing is produced by the petitioner before this Court with regard to acknowledgement for having filed the application Form-57 (Annexure-A). Hence, issuing writ of mandamus does not arise. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- JUDGE ARK

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2024 Same Parties Suresh vs State of Karnataka Same Judge E.S.Indiresh