Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS versus KRISHNOJI REO AND ANR.

Decided
25 March 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 874 · 1996 INSC 442

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 874, margin G

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court made on June 11, 1990 in Writ Appeal No. 283/1986. The controversy is regulated by the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarrniki Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950 (for short, the 'Act'). The land bearing Survey No. 87 of Revadihal village was unassessed and uncultivable waste land _as per the _Mutation Entry 313 dated August 20, 1960. The Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad in his order dated June 17, 1964 assigned an extent of 109 acres 34 guntas of land in the said Survey for public . purpose, namely, grazing purposes for the village cattle. Ori 6.4.1964, it was decided that an extent of 100 acres of land in the said Survey be transfe_rr.e~ to the Forest Department for afforestation. The· Government in it~. order .. · dated August i, 1964 granted actual possession of 100' acres of land to be handed over to the Forest Department. It was entered in the Re~ei.me records by Mutation Entry No. 413 dated August 1, 1966. The Divisional Commissioner in his order dated November 27, 1964 granted 92 acres out of 100 acres to 23 persons for cultivation and remanded the m'atter for fresh enquiry. On March 4, 1968, the Assistant Commissioner regranted an extent of 201 acres 34 guntas of land in the same Survey number to the ·respondents setting apart an area. of _109 acres 34 guntas for grazing purposes of the village catties and he alsii reserved 100 acres for the Forest ' Department . f()r afforestation. The· Deputy Commissioner by suo _motu order d:jted January 24, 1977 has cancelled the order of the Assistant · Commissioner dated March 4, 1968.

pp. 874–875, margin G

Feeli~g agg~ieved, the respo~dent filed Writ pe\ition No. 2236/77 in the High Court. The l~arned sitigkJudge of the High Court by order dated December 4, 1985 has partly allowed. the "1rit petition and directed to grant an extent of 201 acres 34. gtintas to the respondent. When the appellant filed appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

p. 875, margin D

Whereas the first respondent has been served, whereabouts of the second respondent are not known. So he must be deemed to have been served. They are not appearing either in person or through counsel. In view of the fact that the orde_r granting 100 ,acres for affo_restation and 109.34 guntas for grazing purposes having become filial andnot challenged earlier by the Watandar, they cannot chalienge .the same .du~ to re~~rsal of the · earlier order by Deputy Collll)lissioner in ex~rcise of suo m'atu power. In the writ petition, they could not have challenge the orde!. They could have challenged only with regard to the residue of the land which should have been considered. The reason being that the right of the Watan under Section 4 is subject to the rights created in Section4-A _of the Act. The Division Bench and the learned single Judge, therefore, have not properly considered the controversy. Since the respondents arc not appearing, the orders of the High Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court with a request to dispose of the writ petition on merits in accordance with law. The part of the order of the learned single Judge in favour of the State which became final stands confirmed.

pp. 875–876, margin F

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. R.P. Appeals allowed.

p. 876, margin B