Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri C K Raju And Others vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|26 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NOs.33324-33326/2019 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C.K. RAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O MUNISHAMI RAJU.
2. SRI. M. RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O MUNISHAMI RAJU.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI GANIGARA PALYA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.S, ADVPCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560 009.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:13/14.02.2019 AT ANENXRUE-A ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.8/2 MEASURING 3 ACRES 05 GUNTAS AND SY.NO.9/2 MEASURING 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS AND SY.LNO.9/3 MEASURING 30 GUNTAS OF U.M. KAVAL VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matters are listed for ‘Hearing on Interlocutory Application’, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties they are taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioners who have purchased the land bearing Sy.No.8/2 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas and Sy.No.9/2 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas under sale deeds dated 13.09.1990 and 30.09.1991 respectively, which lands are situated at Manavarthe Kaval Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, filed an application before the revenue authorities to classify ‘B’ kharab land, which has been brought under cultivation as ‘A’ kharab land. On purchase of said land by petitioners, said survey number has been phoded or renumbered as ‘8/2’, ‘9/2’ and ‘9/3’ respectively to an extent of 6 acres 20 guntas and 2 acres and 3 acres respectively i.e., in all 11 acres 20 guntas.
3. It is the grievance of petitioners that kharab land was inter-spread over entire land and same has been brought under active cultivation and it does not remain as ‘B’ kharab land any more and as such, classifying said land to an extent of 5 acres 37 guntas in respect of 3 survey numbers as ‘B’ kharab, is erroneous and as such representation came to be submitted on 16.10.2017-Annexure-U to the jurisdictional Tahsildar to reduce ‘B’ kharab land into cultivable land holding. On 09.03.2018 a report came to be submitted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar and Taluk Surveyor along with joint sketch as per Annexure-U-1 certifying thereunder that entire land has been brought under cultivation. Subsequently, a representation dated 28.02.2018-Annexure-U-2 came to be submitted to second respondent by the petitioners on 09.03.2018 seeking reduction of ‘B’ kharab land stating thereunder that they are ready and willing to pay the market value of the property, since similar benefit was also extended to similarly placed persons. Jurisdictional Tahsildar along with Assistant Director of Land Revenue, who conducted the inspection have submitted a report to the Joint Director of Land Records on 22.12.2018-Annexure-V recommending for grant of land in favour of petitioners. In fact, reports of the Tahsildar and Taluk Surveyor, which is at Annexures-V-1 and V-2 would clearly disclose that entire land, which had been classified as ‘B’ kharab land, has been brought under active cultivation as reflected in Annexure-V-1 itself. However, second respondent without considering all these reports by impugned endorsement dated 13/14.02.2019 – Annexure-A has rejected the claim of petitioners. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of enclosure to memo filed by learned counsel appearing for petitioners, it would not detain this Court for too long to quash the impugned endorsement for the simple reason that Government Order dated RD 05 LGP 2018 dated 16.05.2018 itself would clearly indicate that Government by its Circular dated 16.09.1994 has resolved to permit conversion of land where the kharab land is in possession of Hiduvalidar and if the said kharab land were to consist of land specified in Annexure-I to the Government Order namely, such of those lands can be brought as A kharab land from the status of B kharab land. In the light of said Government Order dated 16.05.2018 as also reports of the jurisdictional Tahsildar as well as ADLR clearly disclosing that entire extent of land has been brought under active cultivation by the petitioners and land in question i.e., ‘B’ kharab land does not possess any characteristic of ‘B’ kharab land as it was brought under active cultivation land namely, Sy.Nos.8/2, 9/2 and 9/3 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas, 1 acre 32 guntas and 0.17 guntas respectively being continued to be classified as ‘B’ kharab land does not arise.
5. In the teeth of sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, second respondent will have to decide the said issue before the Committee as indicated in the light of above said recommendations as well as Government Order dated 16.05.2018.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) Endorsement No.LND(S)CR/627/17-18 dated 13/14.02.2019–Annexure-A issued by second respondent is quashed.
(iii) Claim of petitioners for classifying the land measuring 3 acre 5 guntas, 1 acre 32 guntas and 17 guntas in Sy.Nos.8/2, 9/2 and 9/3 situated at Manavarthe Kaval Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, is ordered to be adjudicated by the Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 16.05.2018 expeditiously at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in the event of said Committee having already been constituted and in existence. As otherwise, within three (3) months from such constitution. However, it is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.
In view of writ petitions having been allowed, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and it stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE DR
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri C K Raju And Others vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
26 August, 2019
Judges
  • Aravind Kumar