Narayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Narayanappa vs State of Karnataka and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Apr 05, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/901875

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/901875
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Hvluvadi G. Ramesh, J.
Decided On: Apr 05, 2010
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10971 of 2010
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 94A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayanappa

Advocate R.A. Dovanand, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and ors.

Advocate R. Kumar, Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 94A
Reported In: 2010(3)KarLJ264

Excerpt

- .....bogus grant certificate said to have been issued by the tahsildar and interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioner.4. the prayer of the petitioner is that, an enquiry has to be held in respect of the alleged grant said to have been made pertaining to sy. no. 16 of volegarahalli, kengeri hobli and it is for the 3rd respondent namely the executive officer, taluk panchayat, banashankari, to issue notice to the concerned persons to whom the alleged grant certificate was issued and also examine the case of the petitioner after due notice to him in accordance with law.5. so far as the grant is concerned, as per section 94-a of the kamataka land revenue act, 1964, it could be considered only if the land is not within 18 kms/25 kms from the outer radius of the bangalore corporation limits. therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to do the needful at the earliest and take suitable action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. there shall be status quo order until the decision in the matter by the 3rd respondent.6. with the above said observations, the petition is disposed of.learned high court government pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Hvluvadi G. Ramesh, J.

1. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. Notice to respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with.

2. Petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to comply with the direction/order of the 2nd respondent by holding an enquiry in respect of the bogus Grant Certificate pertaining to Sy. No. 16 of the Volagerehalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

3. According to the petitioner, he and other poor persons constructed small houses by covering an area to the extent of 2 to 3 acres in the above said survey number with their family for several years. In view of the State Government inviting applications for regularisation of unauthorised occupancy, the petitioner and others submitted an application for the same. After submission of the said application by the petitioner and Ors. one class of persons who have not filed any application for regularisation, created bogus grant certificate said to have been issued by the Tahsildar and interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioner.

4. The prayer of the petitioner is that, an enquiry has to be held in respect of the alleged grant said to have been made pertaining to Sy. No. 16 of Volegarahalli, Kengeri Hobli and it is for the 3rd respondent namely the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Banashankari, to issue notice to the concerned persons to whom the alleged grant certificate was issued and also examine the case of the petitioner after due notice to him in accordance with law.

5. So far as the grant is concerned, as per Section 94-A of the Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it could be considered only if the land is not within 18 kms/25 kms from the outer radius of the Bangalore Corporation limits. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to do the needful at the earliest and take suitable action within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be status quo order until the decision in the matter by the 3rd respondent.

6. With the above said observations, the petition is disposed of.

Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2010 Same Parties Narayanappa vs State of Karnataka and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge Hvluvadi G. Ramesh, J. Acts & Sections Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 94A

Property