Writ Petition No. 28489 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6659 WP No. 28489 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 28489 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B.V. UMESH, S/O VEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT BANADAHALLI VILLAGE, BELURU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. 2. SRI. B.V. BASAVARAJU, S/O VEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BANDAHALLI VILLAGE, BELURU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. (BY SRI. YATNAL PARASAPPA GURAPPA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 214. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKALESHAPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 214. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6659 WP No. 28489 of 2024 4. THE TAHASILDAR, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115. 5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER FOR HEMAVATI RESERVOIR PROJECT, HASSAN - 573 214. …RESPONDENTS
Decision
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO TAKE ACTION ON APPLICATION DATED 03.04.2024 IS HEREBY PRODUCED AS ANNX-B IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, a mandamus is sought against respondent No.4/Tahasildar to issue no objection certificate to enable the petitioner to sell the petition lands, which is granted while implementing the Yagachi Reservoir Project, Gorur, Hassan. 2. The petitioners' father, having lost ancestral properties, is compensated by granting the petition lands - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6659 WP No. 28489 of 2024 vide grant order dated 22.07.1996, which is evidenced at Annexure-A-1. The authority has also issued saguvali chit, which is evidenced at Annexure-A-2. Alleging inaction on the part of authorities, this petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA. Perused the records. 4. Learned AGA, on instructions, submits that unless the genuineness of the grant obtained by the petitioners' father is enquired, the authorities, more particularly the Tahasildar is not in a position to grant NOC. 5. Having considered the submissions made by both parties, this Court is of the firm view that the authorities cannot prevent a citizen from alienating property solely on the pretext of questioning the genuineness of the grant. The records in this case clearly indicate that the petitioners' father had previously lost lands due to the implementation of a government project - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6659 WP No. 28489 of 2024 and was duly compensated under the prescribed scheme. As part of this compensation, the petitioners’ father was granted the petition lands, and a formal grant order was issued on 22.07.1996, which is duly documented as evidenced in Annexure-A1. Following this, the Jurisdictional Tahasildar issued a saguvali chit, as evidenced in Annexure-A2, thereby further affirming the legitimacy of the grant. If the authorities seek to verify the authenticity of the grant, they have the prerogative to do so by securing and scrutinizing the original records. The Tahasildar, being the concerned authority, is well within his rights to obtain verification of the grant’s authenticity from respondent No.5, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who was responsible for granting the lands to the petitioners' father in the first place. However, it is imperative that the authorities exercise due diligence in dealing with such matters and refrain from subjecting genuine grantees to unnecessary harassment. A blanket assumption that all such grants are fraudulent is legally untenable. Unless the authorities possess concrete - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6659 WP No. 28489 of 2024 evidence, duly authenticated by competent officials, to establish that the grant in question is indeed fraudulent, respondent No.4, the Tahasildar, cannot withhold or defer the issuance of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioners. Furthermore, if the petitioners seek to alienate the property, it is reasonable to infer that they are doing so due to financial constraints or other valid personal reasons. The right to possess, enjoy, and lawfully dispose of one’s property is a fundamental aspect of ownership, and such rights cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by the authorities based on unsubstantiated generalizations regarding the validity of the grant. 6. In light of the foregoing, it is incumbent upon respondent No.4, the Tahasildar, to act in a lawful and expeditious manner in dealing with the petitioners' request. The Tahasildar must take the necessary steps to verify the authenticity of the grant by seeking an opinion from respondent No.5, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who played a pivotal role in granting these lands - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6659 WP No. 28489 of 2024 to the petitioners’ father. The verification process must be conducted based on official records and in a transparent manner, without subjecting the petitioners to undue procedural delays. The failure on the part of respondent No.4 to take timely action constitutes clear inaction and an abdication of duty. The obligation of respondent No.4 is not only to verify the records but also to issue the NOC promptly if the grant is found to be genuine. Any further delay or reluctance in discharging this duty would amount to an infringement on the petitioners' legal rights. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to take necessary action in accordance with law and issue the NOC without unwarranted hesitation, provided that no legally tenable grounds exist to withhold the same. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER The writ petition is hereby allowed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6659 WP No. 28489 of 2024 ii. Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar is directed to consider the petitioners' representation strictly in accordance with law. iii. Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar is at liberty to obtain a report from Respondent No.5 – Special Land Acquisition Officer to ascertain the genuineness of the grant made in favor of the petitioners' father. iv. In the event such a request is made by Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar, Respondent No.5 – Special Land Acquisition Officer shall expeditiously verify the records and furnish a comprehensive report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the request. v. Upon receipt of the report from Respondent No.5 – Special Land Acquisition Officer, Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar shall take a final - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6659 WP No. 28489 of 2024 decision on the petitioners' request within an outer limit of three months thereafter. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK CT: BHK