Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.44801/2012 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN:
SRI.H.L.SUBRAMANYA S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA KARANTH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVANI AT AND POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA-577 201 (BY SRI.S.SHIVANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION SHIMOGA-577201 3. THE TAHSILDAR THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, THIRTHAHALLI, SHIMOGA DISTIRCT-577201 (BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA) ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.8.2011 PASSED BY THE R1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DIST., SHIMOGA IN REGULAR APPEAL-2011-12 AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. Shivanand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents. Perused the case papers.
2. Petitioner filed an application in Form No.53 under Rule 108-CC(1) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short ‘Rules’) on 22.03.1999 before Regularization of Unauthorised Cultivation of Land Committee seeking regularization of his unauthorized cultivation of land measuring 5 acres bearing Sy.No.1 of Basavani Village, Mattur Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk, Shivamogga District.
3. Third respondent by order dated 17.02.2004-Annexure-B rejected said application on the ground that petitioner was not cultivating said land.
Being aggrieved by said order petitioner filed an appeal in R.A.No.35/2007-08 before second respondent, who by order dated 08.02.2011 dismissed the same on the ground of said authority not being an appellate authority. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 108-D(6) before first respondent in R.A./2011-
12. Appellate authority by impugned order dated 08.08.2011-Annexure-E rejected the appeal by confirming the order dated 17.02.2004 on the ground that there was no proof of cultivation prior to the appointed date.
4. It is the contention of Sri.Shivanand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that respondents had not conducted spot inspection as mandatorily required under Rules and without recording subjective satisfaction impugned order has been passed. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that respondents have not conducted any spot inspection and report, which is placed before authorities, was without conducting spot inspection or verifying at the spot to find out whether petitioner was cultivating the land in question or not. Hence, he prays for quashing of the impugned order.
5. Per contra, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents would submit that authorities have recorded a finding of fact and it would not call for interference.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would emerge therefrom that Committee, which examined the claim of petitioner for grant of land, ought to have taken a call based on the documents which came to be tendered by petitioner together with spot inspection report as prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 108-CC, which reads as under:
Next >