Suresh vs State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1901793
CourtKarnataka Orders High Court
Decided OnJul-01-2024
Case NumberWP/12273/2024
JudgeE.S.Indiresh
AppellantSuresh
RespondentState of Karnataka
Excerpt:
-1-in the high court of karnataka at bengalurudated 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 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
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