IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. L.NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.586/2016 (KLR-RR-SUR) BETWEEN:
SRI AVALAPPA S/O KONDAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DIST.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY G.V. ADV.,) AND 1. SMT. BYAMMA D/O LATE BILLAPPA WAS DEAD HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1(a) SRI N. HANUMATHARAYAPPA S/O LATE PATEL NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
1(b) SRI B.H. SAMPATH S/O N. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 1(c) SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O N. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK & DIST.
1(d) SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT SONNEHALLI VILLAGE KUNDALAGURKI HOBLI SIDLAGATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTI STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE- 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DIST.
4. THE TAHSILDAR CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADV., FOR R1 (a-d); SMT. R. ANITHA, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4) *** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.29284/2010 DATED 18.02.2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The fourth respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29284/2010 dated 18.02.2016.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their status in the writ petition.
3. The case of petitioner is that, she was granted agricultural land in Sy.No.40 measuring 3 acres 31 guntas at Byranayakanahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District in the year 1977 by issuing Saguvali Chit in the year 1982. Since the date of grant, petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said land.
4. The Assistant Commissioner without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, by order dated 03.08.2009 cancelled the grant made by the Tahsildar, Chikkaballapura. Petitioner challenged the same in the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the said order. The Hon’ble Single Judge after recording the finding that the Assistant Commissioner had acted without jurisdiction, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order canceling the grant made in petitioner’s favour. Feeling aggrieved, fourth respondent has presented this appeal.
5. The case of the fourth respondent is that he is in unauthorized occupation and in cultivation of land in Sy.No.40 for the last 20 years and he has filed an application in Form 53 on 23.12.1998 seeking regularization of his unauthorized occupation and the same is pending consideration. It is submitted that unless the said application is disposed of, the Hon’ble Single Judge could not have set-aside the cancellation of grant made in favour of the petitioner. Further, he also prays for a direction to the Tahsildar to dispose of his application filed in Form 53.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner. The same was cancelled without notice to her. The Hon’ble Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition.
7. The claim of fourth respondent is that he is in unauthorized occupation. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this writ appeal.
8. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties.
9 . It is not in dispute that land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Single Judge has set-aside the cancellation order by holding that Assistant Commissioner had acted without jurisdiction. Hence, we find no error in the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.
The fourth respondent claims to be in unauthorized occupation. He may separately work out his remedy before the concerned Authority.
10. In the result, we dispose of this appeal confirming the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge reserving liberty to fourth respondent to work out his remedy seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation separately.
In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.1/2016 does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE HR