SRI. NINGEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents No.1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to cultivate the lands owned by the petitioner which is referred to in the schedule to the petition.

(2.) The petitioner contends that the lands bearing Survey Nos. 163, 164 and 165 to the extent as indicated in the schedule to the petition and situated at Kattaya Kaval village, Kattaya Hobli, Hassan Taluk are the lands absolutely owned by the petitioners. In that regard it is contended that the lands in question were granted by the Revenue Department to the vendor of the petitioner in the year 1977. The petitioner claims to have purchased the said properties under a Registered sale deed dated 13.11.1996 and has thereafter secured the Revenue entries to the property through M.R. No. 2/2012-13, M.R. No.10/2014-15 and M.R. No. 4/2015-16. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents contending that the said property is forest land has not been permitting the petitioner to cultivate the same though earlier the petitioner was cultivating the said property.

(3.) The petitioner at an earlier point had sought for permission to carry on the quarry operations in a portion of the land situated in Sy. No.164/10B-P1 and 163 of Kattayakavalu village which is also a portion of the land which is purchased under the sale deed dated 13.11.1996. In that context, when a contention had been raised by the respondents that the claim as put forth by the petitioner cannot be accepted so as to permit quarrying operation since the land is a forest land, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.39977/2015 dated 12.01.2016 had directed a survey to be conducted and thereafter a decision to be taken. Since according to the respondents in the said process it is noticed that the land is forest land, the leave had not been granted. The case of the petitioner however is that though such contention is put forth by the respondents in respect of the extent regarding which the leave to carry out quarrying operation was sought, in respect of the remaining portion the petitioner having cultivated the land thus far and since according to the petitioner the same is revenue land, the petitioner claims that the leave to cultivate the land is to be granted and therefore, appropriate directions be issued.