Karnataka High Court
Smt Jambavva vs The Deputy Commissioner Gadag District on 22 March, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
WIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.4496/2007 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN
1. SMT JAMBAVVA
W/O HUCHHAPPA SHIRUND
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/OF HOSUR, TQ AND DIST GADAG
2. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O BASAPPA VADDAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/OF HOSUR, TQ AND DIST GADAG
(CLAIMING AS L.R. OF LATE VENKAVVA
BASAPPA VADDAR)
3. SMT NEELAVVA
W/O HANUMAPPA VADDAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/OF HOSUR, TQ AND DIST GADAG
4. SMT HANUMAVVA
W/O BASAVANNEPPA VADDAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/OF HOSUR, TQ AND DIST GADAG
2
5. SMT KAVITHA
W/O DEVENDRAPPA VADDAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/OF HOSUR, TQ AND DIST GADAG
6. SMT SHANTHAVVA
W/O NAGAPPA VADDAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/OF HOSUR, TQ AND DIST GADAG
7. SMT NAGAVVA
W/O GURAPPA BHANDIVADDAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/OF HOSUR, TQ AND DIST GADAG
8. SMT RENAVVA
W/O KUMARAPPA VADDAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/OF HOSUR, TQ AND DIST GADAG
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S P KULKARNI)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
GADAG DISTRICT
GADAG
2. THE TAHSILDAR
GADAG TALUK
GADAG
3. DR B R AMBEDKAR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
SRI.VEERANARAYANA TEMPLE ROAD
G.S. MANVI BUILDING
GADAG 582101
3
REPTD BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K VIDYAVATHI - AGA for R1 & R2
SRI MAHANTESH SINGH & SHARANABASAVARAJ FOR
R4)
THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS DT. 11.10.2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG, BEING ARBITRARY,
ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND BEING
WITHOUT JURISDICTION VIDE ANNEX.G AND TO QUASH
THE ORDER DT. 7.2.2007 PASSED BY R1 AUTHORITY
BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW
EQUITY AND JUSTICE APART FROM BEING WITHOUT
JURISDICTION VIDE ANNEX.Q.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.03.2017 AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this writ petition being aggrieved of the order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag District, Gadag canceling benefit of the scheme availed by the petitioners from Dr. B R Ambedkar Development Corporation Ltd., Copy of 4 the order is produced at ANNEXURE-Q to the writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the authorities after a period of 15 years cannot contemplate the recalling of the lands given in view of long lapse of time and being after unreasonable period in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1983 SC 1239. The authority has not held any enquiry nor the oral statements of the petitioners were recorded to prove their defence. The order passed by the authority suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. The authority has failed to see that families of each of the petitioners are divided and are living separately and even they have independent ration cards and they reside as independent families under different roofs and their food and wear are different. The benefit of the scheme was extended on the basis of the certificate issued by 5 the Tahsildar that the petitioners are the landless persons and having income below the prescribed limit. Hence the petitioners pray to quash the impugned order.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents support the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, the petitioners have suppressed the material facts which the Deputy Commissioner has examined with reference to RTC entries and canceled the benefit extended to the petitioners. No grounds for interference and thus pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the writ petition papers.
5. The petitioners in the entire averments made in the writ petition except stating that the impugned order is bad in law, have not met the main reason on which the Deputy Commissioner has withdrawn the benefit 6 extended to them under the scheme. The main reason for withdrawing the benefit was, the petitioners suppressed the material fact of their holding land. The contention of the petitioners that there is division in the family and each member is independently living cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that conditions of the scheme stipulates that beneficiary shall not hold land either in his name or in the name of any of the members of the family and such other conditions. The learned counsel has vehemently contended that there is long delay in taking action and therefore recalling is bad in law. The petitioners have suppressed material facts and played fraud in obtaining benefit of the scheme. The Deputy Commissioner has not only withdrawn the benefit extended to the petitioners but also directed enquiry against the officers who have issued false certificates in favour of the petitioners. In a case where there is fraud committed, delay will not come to the rescue of the beneficiaries.
7
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following citations:
(a) ILR 1990 KAR 1241 (Siddalingayya Gurayya Vastrad vs., Assistant Commissioner) to advance the contention that authority to act independently not on inspiration of others or even superior authority.
(b) Kar L J 1980 kS.N.167 (Page 51) (Mohammed Husein Vs., State of Karnataka to contend that government or its officers cannot take away the right except in accordance with law without affording an opportunity to the petitioner.
(c) ILR 1988 KAR 3316 (Sanulla vs., Deputy Commissioner) to contend that in the absence of Deputy Commissioner holding that the petitioners are sufficient holders, cancellation is bad.8
(d) AIR 1983 SC 1239 (Mansuram v. S P Pathak & Others) to contend that when a power is conferred, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner.
(e) ILR 1998 KAR 4000 (Venkatagiriyappa vs., State of Karnataka Rev. Department) to advance the contention that authorities hve to initiate action within a reasonable time.
I have gone through the rulings referred to above and I am of the clear view that the principles laid down in the said decisions cannot be pressed into service to the case on hand. Here is a case where terms and conditions are prescribed for extending the benefit under the scheme and one of the conditions is that the beneficiary shall not hold land either in his name or in the name of any member of the family, which the petitioners suppressed as clearly pointed out by the Deputy Commissioner in 9 the impugned order. Petitioners have failed to meet the said reasoning.
7. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition lacks any merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd*