Karnataka High Court
Sri. Revanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2023
Bench: M.I.Arun
-1-
WP No. 9667 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9667 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. REVANNA,
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SMT. FATHIMA, DEAD BY LRS
2. BASHA SAB
AJIKRIYA
S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
3. SRI. NAGARAJCHARI,
S/O SHAMACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
NAGEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS
Digitally 4. SMT MANJAMMA,
signed by V
MANJUSHA
BAI
W/O LATE NAGEGOWDA,
Location: AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
High Court
of Karnataka
5. SRI. RANGEGOWDA,
S/O MANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
6. SRI. DEVARAJ,
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
NANDIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
-2-
WP No. 9667 of 2023
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK - 573 116,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOOD, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHANTAKUMAR K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN 573 201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN SUB DIVISION,
HASSAN 573 201.
4. THE TAHASILDAR,
CHANNARAYAPATNNA TALUK,
CHANNARAYAPATNA 573 116,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTICE DATED 10.11.2022 IN NO.
Othuvari/U.Nya.Pra.Sam./2/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-M
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 SO FAR PETITIONERS
CONCERNED ONLY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 9667 of 2023
ORDER
The case of the petitioners is that they were in un-
authoritized cultivation and occupation of certain lands in
Sy.No.31 of Nandipura Village, Channarayapatna Taluk.
Subsequently, they were granted the said lands by the
Government. However, at the behest of villagers the grant
was withdrawn on the ground that the land is part of tank
bed area. The same was challenged by the petitioners by
way of W.P.No.16462/2021. This Court came to the
conclusion that there is no error in the order of canceling
the grant of land made in favour of the petitioners.
However, under the given facts and circumstances of the
case, it was ordered that the jurisdictional Tahsildar and
Deputy Commissioner should identify the alternative lands
and pass necessary orders of granting the said lands in
favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and
at any rate within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of copy of the order. However, as the same has
not been complied with, the petitioners have filed the
present writ petition contending that unless they are
WP No. 9667 of 2023
granted alternative lands, they should not be dispossessed
of the lands cultivated by them and they have prayed for
the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE for the reasons stated above the
petitioners respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash
the impugned Notice dated 10.11.2022 in No.
Othuvari/U. Nya. Pra. Sam./2/2021-22 vide
Annexure-M. issued by the respondent No.4 so
far petitioners concerned only.
b) to issue a writ in the nature of direction, direct
the respondent No.2 and 4 not to dispossess the
petitioners from the land in question, without
granting alternative land as per the Order dated
28.9.2022 passed in W.P.No.16462/2021 KLR.
vide Annexuer-L.
c) Pass such other order or directions as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and
circumstances of the above case."
2. The learned AGA upon instructions submits that
the respondents are in the process of identifying the
alternative lands and allotting same to the petitioners.
However, he contends that the petitioners cannot be
WP No. 9667 of 2023
permitted to be in possession of the present lands till such
alternative land is allotted. It is submitted that no such
right is conferred on them by the decision of this Court in
W.P.No.16462/2021. It is also submitted that if the
petitioners do not vacate the lands concerned
immediately, due to the ensuing monsoon season there
would be problems as the lands form part of a tank bed
area and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
3. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment
in W.P.No.16462/2021 reads as under:
"10. In the light of the above, this Court
is of the considered opinion that while sustaining
the impugned orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner,
nevertheless, alternative arrangements will have
to be made for the petitioners.
11. Therefore, this Court would direct the
respondent-Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner,
Hassan District, to identify any other alternative
lands for the petitioners and make
recommendations to enable the petitioners to
have alternative lands. This Court does not find any
fault with the petitioners and therefore, this action is
WP No. 9667 of 2023
required to be taken at the hands of the
respondent-State.
12. The respondent-Tahsildar,
Channarayapatna Taluk and the Deputy
Commissioner, Hassan District, are hereby directed
to identify alternative lands which are suitable for
agriculture and pass necessary orders of regrant in
favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible
and at any rate within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. The petitioners shall be permitted to
harvest the crops that are grown at present and in
that regard, the petitioners are permitted to
remove the crops within a period of four weeks
from today."
4. The aforementioned decision makes it clear that
the petitioners are required to vacate the lands that they
are in possession as of now and are entitled to alternative
lands. However, they cannot contend that they should not
be dispossessed of the lands before such allotment of
alternative lands.
5. For the aforementioned reasons the petitioners
are not entitled to the prayer in the writ petition wherein,
WP No. 9667 of 2023
they have sought for quashing of the impugned notice
asking them to vacate the properties concerned and also
for a direction directing the respondents not to dispossess
them of the lands without granting alternative lands.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this does
not preclude the petitioners from enforcing their rights as
determined in W.P.No.16462/2021.
SD/-
JUDGE
PGG
