WP 28100/2012 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

W.P.No.28100/2012 (KLR-LG)

BETWEEN:

SRI B.M.CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE MANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O BELALAGERE VILLAGE, TALUK, DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER

(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA R., ADV. FOR Sri B.RUDRAGOWDA, ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTICT, DAVANAGERE.

3. THE TAHASILDAR CHANNAGIRI TALUK, CHANNAGIRI, . ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, HCGP )

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of , praying to direct the respondents to consider the application for grant of land to the petitioner in WP 28100/2012 2

Sy.No.21 of Belalagere Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District and etc.

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing-B group this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to consider the application for grant of land in Sy. No.21 measuring 5 acres situated at Belalagere village.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed an application on 17.01.1997 seeking grant of land. It is contended by him that he joined defence service in the year

1985 and retired in 2007. According to him, he is cultivating 5 acres of land in Sy. No.21 of Belalagere village. It is urged by him that the Taluk Surveyor has inspected the land and drawn the sketch showing the land in his cultivation.

3. The grievance made by the petitioner is that the respondent-authority has not considered the application for grant of land although petitioner is eligible and entitled for the same.

4. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the Tahsildar has issued an endorsement dated WP 28100/2012 3

08.03.2012 addressed to the petitioner that the land in question could not be granted to him as it is a Gomaal land.

5. In view of the endorsement issued rejecting the request of the petitioner, petitioner has to challenge the same in accordance with law. The direction as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, in accordance with law.

Sd/- JUDGE

KK