LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-158

K.C.KADARAIAH Vs. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Decided On September 03, 2019
K.C.KADARAIAH Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this writ appeal have assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.29480/2018, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel Sri. M.C.Basavaraju, appearing for the appellants and Sri. I.Tharanath Poojari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State.

(3.) It is the case of the appellants that the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 to 6 was in cultivation of 4 acres of land belonging to the Government, situated at Survey No.26 of K.Gollahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District and Form No.50 dated 19.08.1991 was filed under the amended provision of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for regularization of the unauthorized occupation of the said land. Out of total 4 acres, 1 acre 20 guntas had been granted in favour of one Narasimhaiah by respondent No.5-Committee, vide resolution dated 03.02.2004, aggrieved by which an appeal under Rule 108(d)(6) of the Amended Rules of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) was filed before respondent No.3 numbered as Petition No.3/2006-07. The said appeal came to be allowed by an order dated 03.11.2008, whereby the resolution passed by the Committee was set aside and the matter was remanded with a direction to respondent No.4 to place the application filed by the husband of appellant No.1 before respondent No.5 to take a fresh decision. A representation dated 08.11.2008 was also made to respondent No.4 requesting to change the mutation entries in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Survey No.26 of K.Gollahalli village by deleting the name of Narasimhaiah. The said Narasimhaiah filed an appeal under Section 49 of the Act challenging the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 03.11.2008, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed.