Karnataka High Court
K B Shantamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 30 March, 2022
Bench: M.I.Arun
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION No.35424 OF 2011 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
K B SHANTAMMA
W/O PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OOC:AGRICULTURE
R/O YOGIHALLI VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN
3. Y N RANGANATH
S/O NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O YOGIHALLI VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI
HAVERI TALUK ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R.SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. B.CHETAN, ADV. FOR R3)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R1 DATED.28.03.11 IN FILE
NO.RS 55/07 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ALSO THE ORDER OF
R2 DATED 30.11.07 IN FILE NO.49/01-02 VIDE ANNEXURE-
F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that she was in
unauthorized cultivation of 3 acres 15 guntas of land
situated in Survey No.437/1, Melgodu village, Dudda Hobli,
Hassan Taluk. She made necessary applications for
regularization of the same and Saguvali chit was issued in
her favour. Respondent no.3 challenged the issuance of
Saguvali chit in favour of the petitioner before respondent
no.2 on the ground that he was in cultivation of the same
and not the petitioner and that the land has to be granted in
his favour. An order dated 30.11.2007 vide Annexure-F to
the writ petition was passed by respondent no.2 by which
the land granted in favour of the petitioner herein has been
cancelled. The same was challenged by the petitioner
before the Deputy Commissioner respondent no.1 which
also has been dismissed by order dated 28.03.2011 vide
Annexure-H to the writ petition. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner preferred O.S.No.32/2006 before the Principal
Civil Judge, Hassan against respondent no.3 with a prayer
for perpetual injunction. The said suit has been dismissed
by holding that the petitioner herein has failed to prove her
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The said judgment and decree passed in the original suit
has been challenged by way of R.A.No.35/2011 before the
Senior Civil Judge, Hassan. The said appeal has also been
dismissed and it has attained finality. The instant writ
petition has been filed challenging the order passed by
respondent no.2 wherein the grant made in favour of the
petitioner has been cancelled and the order of respondent
no.1 wherein the order passed by respondent no.2 has been
upheld.
2. Admittedly, the Court of competent jurisdiction has
come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not in
possession and cultivation of the land concerned.
Respondent nos.1 and 2 after verifying the facts have come
to the conclusion that the petitioner was never in possession
and cultivation of the land concerned and the order granting
the said land was erroneous and accordingly, the same has
been set aside. The petitioner having failed to prove her
unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the land
concerned is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the
instant writ petition.
The writ petition being devoid of merits is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hkh.
