Karnataka High Court
Umesh P G vs The Deputy Commissioner on 25 October, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WP Nos.8341-8342/2013(LB-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN
1. UMESH P G
S/O GOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O GARANI, MADUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
2. NAGALOTAPPA
S/O VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O GARANI, MADUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.MANMOHAN P N, ADV FOR
M/S.MANMOHAN P.N & ASSTS, ADVS.)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
TUMKUR-572101.
-2-
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION,
TUMKUR-572010
3. THE PDO/SECRETARY
GARANI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
MADUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PANCHAYAT RAJ LAKE SUB-DIVISION,
MADHUGIRI,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
5. THE LOKAYUKTA
REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TUMKUR-572101.
6. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING.
BANGALORE.
(Impleaded as per order dated 12.08.2013)
7. JALA SAMVARDANA YOJANA SANGHA
DISTRICT PLANNING UNIT
TUMKUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
8. SRI.ERANNA
S/O.THIMANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
9. SRI.LAXMINARSAPPA
S/O.MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
10. SRI.NAGARAJ
S/O.CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
-3-
11. SRI.GOVINDARAJU
S/O.GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
12. SRI.NINGAPPA
S/O.MUUDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
13. SRI.CHIKKANARASHIMA
S/O.NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
14. SRI.VENKATAPPA
S/O.GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
15. SRI.G.S.SHIVAKUMAR
S/O.SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
16. SRI.SANNATHIMMAIAH
S/O.DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
17. SRI.RAJAGOPAL
S/O.RAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
18. SRI.SHIVARAJU
S/O.KADINAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
19. SRI.MURLIDHARA
S/O.HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
20. SRI.SHIVARAM
S/O.MUDLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
-4-
21. SRI.KARIYANNA
S/O.GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
(Respondent Nos.8 to 21 are impleaded
Vide Court Order dated 10.09.2013.
RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 21 ARE
RESIDENTS OF GARANI VILLAGE
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1, 2 & 6
SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADV. FOR
M/S.A.NAGARAJAPPA & ASSTS., FOR R.3 AND 4
SRI.G.S.DAYANAND, ADV. FOR R.8-21
R.5 SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO PUT-UP ANY SAMUDAYA
BHAVANA OR ALTERNATIVE BUILDING IN SY NO.1 OF
GENERAL VILLAGE WHICH IS EAR-MARKED FOR TANK AND
DIRECT THE RESPONDEN NO.5 TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE
ILLEGALITIES AND IRREGULARITIES OF THE SCHEME.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
ORDER
D.H.WAGHELA, C.J. (Oral) :
1. This public interest litigation is filed by two petitioners claiming to be residents of Garani village, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District, with the grievance that the land bearing Sy.No.1 measuring 166 acres and 20 guntas situated at Garani village is Government Tank (Sarakari Kere) and while it was being revived, it was handed over to Jala Samavardhana Yojana Sangha. However, an unauthorized construction has come up and it is alleged that some land grabbers have stared putting up construction and Garani Grama Panchayat is constructing a Samudaya Bhavana at the site. It is also alleged that the grants made to the respondents for revival of the tank has not been properly utilized.
2. Upon notice being issued to the respondents, it is stated on behalf of the Garani Grama Panchayat and Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Lake Sub-Division, Madhugiri, that the village is deprived of basic amenities like roads, drinking water, community hall, anganawadi, souchalaya, solid waste management etc. It was, therefore, -6- decided by the Panchayat that the community hall for the functions of the poor people and anganawadi building, street lights and solid waste management programme for cleanliness in the village were required to be implemented and preparation of action plan was therefore entrusted to a private consultant called Social Welfare and Rural Development Society. Pursuant to such plan, it was proposed to construct "Samudaya Bhavana" (community hall) adjacent to Anjaneyaswamy temple for the benefit of the public and accordingly, Samudaya Bhavana spread over the land admeasuring 105 ft.x 60 ft. is constructed at the cost of nearly `.20,00,000/-. It is submitted that the site of that construction is on the periphery of Garani tank and the area constructed is only 178.374 Sq.mtrs, whereas, the total water spread is to the extent of 6,74,089.07 Sq.mtrs. It is also claimed that the construction is in no way hindrance to the storage of the tank nor would it reduce the capacity of the tank.
3. Thus, in short, the Samudaya Bhavana is constructed on the site allotted by Grama Panchayat and it is constructed at public expense. It is also claimed that the construction is legal and the roads leading to the structure are also legal. It is -7- further stated on oath by the Assistant Executive Engineer that the petitioner has got personal interest of seeking change of Ashraya site allotted to him in No.111 instead of site Nos.4 and 9 in Sy. No.447 and rejection of the claim of the petitioner is one of the grounds for him to approach this Court in the guise of PIL.
4. In view of the legal and technical objections sought to be canvassed by the petitioners in respect of legality of the construction on the tank bed area, it is submitted by respondent No.3 that a representation dated 22.10.2013 is already made to the Revenue Department for regularization of the construction of Community Hall and it is stated by learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State Government that the representation may be expeditiously considered, in accordance with law. Therefore, pending consideration of the representation by the appropriate authority of the State Government, it is neither necessary nor advisable to issue any direction in respect of the alleged illegal construction when the authorities under the State Government are expected to take into consideration the factual and legal aspect of the matter. In case, the petitioners are still -8- aggrieved by the decision of the State Government, it would be open for them to challenge such decision in accordance with law.
5. Under the circumstances, the petitions do not survive for any further consideration and accordingly, they are disposed as dismissed along with the interim applications made therein.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE mv