IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.29009/2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri.K.Rajeeva Shetty, Aged about 54 years, S/o Sri.Mahabala Shetty, Bandadi Thenkina Mane, Post: Kanyana Village-574 219, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District. …PETITIONER (By Sri.Chandranath Ariga K., Adv.) AND:
1. The Tahasildar, Kundapura Taluk, Kundapura-576 201, Udupi District.
2. The Village Accountant, Kanyana Hattiyangady, Kenchanuru-576 283, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri.Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the 1st respondent to place the application No.NCR 26518/99- 2000 (Annexure-A) before the committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation and quash the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the 1st respondent in No. NCR:CR:411/2017-18, vide Annexure-G etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein is impugning the order of the first respondent dated 13.10.2017 in proceedings No.NCR:CR:411/2017-18. According to the petitioner, his mother Chandamma Shedthi filed an application on 10.04.1999 in Form-53 seeking occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre 50 guntas of land in Sy. No.69 of Kanyana Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District. Even before the said application could be decided, it is stated that she died on 10.12.2004 and it is further stated by the counsel for the petitioner that after the death of Chandamma Shedthi, the petitioner herein who is her son continued in possession of the land towards which he filed application for regularisation. In the meanwhile, even before the said application could be decided, the first respondent is said to have passed the impugned order which is challenged in this proceedings.
4. It is seen that the impugned order is passed without issuing notice to the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter the order dated 13.10.2017 of the first respondent in NCR:CR:411/2017-18 is hereby quashed, reserving liberty to the first respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings after verifying the correctness or otherwise of the application which is filed by petitioner’s mother and take appropriate decision in the matter.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*