Karnataka High Court
B J Puttaswamy vs The Deputy Commissioner on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WA No. 1117 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1117 OF 2021 (KLR-REG)
BETWEEN:
B.J. PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O LATE JAVANAIAH @ JANE GOWDA
RESIDENT OF BORAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, SADHAHOLALU POST
MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA
DISTRICT - 571 428.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVARAMU H.C., ADV.)
Digitally
signed by B A AND:
KRISHNA
KUMAR 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Location: High MANDYA DISTRICT
Court of
Karnataka MANDYA - 571 401.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB-DIVISION
MANDYA - 571 401.
3. THE THASILDAR
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LAXMI NARAYANA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADV., FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2021
PASSED BYTHE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.13825/2021.
-2-
WA No. 1117 of 2021
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed against an order
dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP
NO.13825/2021 by which, writ petition preferred by the
appellant has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated
are that, the appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the
land. The aforesaid land has been reserved for particular public
purpose. Therefore, the claim made by the appellant seeking
regularization of the aforesaid land was not considered and an
order dated 03.06.2021 was passed apprising the appellant
that the land is reserved for public purpose. The aforesaid order
was assailed in the writ petition by the appellant which has
been dismissed by the learned Single vide order 24.08.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the order passed by learned Single Judge is contrary to Rule
108(i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. It is further
submitted that the application submitted by the appellant
WA No. 1117 of 2021
seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation is pending
consideration.
4. We have considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the
land in question. The aforesaid land has been reserved for
particular public purpose and therefore, the application
submitted by the appellant seeking regularization of the land
has not been considered. The learned Single Judge has rightly
held that earmarking of the said land apparently for the public
purpose should override the private interest.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to
differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the
result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
