Karnataka High Court
Sri Shanthakumar B vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.2333 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) PIL
BETWEEN:
SRI SHANTHAKUMAR B
S/O LATE BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O ALDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANGADHAR G.D, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE
DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION
CHITRADURGA
4. THE TAHASILDHAR
HOSADURGA TALUK
-2-
HOSADURGA
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
5. T.RAJAPPA
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
6. ANNAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
7. JAGADISHA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
8. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O RANGPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
9. CHODAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
10.LOKESHAPPA
S/O CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
11.RATHNAMMA
W/O MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
12.MANJAPPA
S/O CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
13.KUMARAPPA
S/O DAS HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
14.DRAKSHAYANAMMA
W/O MANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
15.THIPPESHAPPA
S/O KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
-3-
16.ONKARAPPA
S/O CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YERS
17.RANGAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
18.PAVITHRA
W/O KUMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
19.ADVAPPA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 19 ARE
RESIDING AT A.K.COLONY
(HARIJANA COLONY)
AALADAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 515
... RESPONDENTS
(SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4
SRI B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 19)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS, PARTICULARLY
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO PRESERVE LAND BEARING LANDS
BEARING SY NO.6 OF THE VEERAPURA VILLAGE AND LANDS
BEARING SY NO.7, 8, 9 OF THE ALDHAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT WHICH ARE
GOMAL LANDS FOR FREE PASTURAGE OF CATTLE OF THE SAID
VILLAGE BY TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE UNAUTHORIZED
CULTIVATORS AS PER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER AND THE VILLAGERS DATED 12.12.2019 PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-F & G. AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
ORDER
This Public Interest Litigation is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents, particularly respondents No.2 to 4 to preserve land bearing lands bearing SY No.6 of the Veerapura village and lands bearing SY No.7, 8, 9 of the Aldhahalli village, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District which are Gomal lands for free pasturage of cattle of the said village by taking action against the unauthorized cultivators as per the representation given by the petitioner and the villagers dated 12.12.2019 produced at Annexure-F & G.
b) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including as to the cost in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard Sri Gangadhar G.D, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as Sri B.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 19.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the basis of instructions as well statement of objections, -5- submits that only 7 applications have been found eligible for allotment. All the 7 applications are yet to be considered by the Committee to be constituted by the State Government, as such, there is no question of any allotment of land in favour of any person. The apprehension of the petitioner is totally misconceived.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the gomal land is required to be preserved for pasturing and the persons who are in possession of the gomal land are using it for cultivation. The respondents are not taking any action to preserve the said gomal land for pasturing purpose.
5. Be that as it may, it is for respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate steps to preserve the gomal land. It would be appropriate that the grievance of the petitioner is considered by the concerning Authority, namely respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the observation that the grievance of the petitioner, as set out in the representations dated -6- 12.12.2019 vide Annexures-F and G, are considered and decided in accordance with law and appropriate orders are passed expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date a copy of the order being produced before him.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB