Karnataka High Court
Nagya Naika vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NOs.14071-14187/2012 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NAGYA NAIKA
S/O RAMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
2. SHIVA NAIKA
S/O RAMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
3. TEEKYA NAIKA
S/O MOGYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
4. SHANTHI BAI @ SHANTHI
W/O KRISHNA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
5. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O ANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
6. DORGA NAIKA
S/O HANDYA NAIKA
-2-
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
7. VISHNU
S/O CHANDA NAIKA @ VISHNU NAIK
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
8. SEVYA NAIKA
S/O DERLA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
9. SEVYA NAIKA
S/O CHANDRA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
10. MANJU NAIKA
S/O APPU NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
11. SEVYA NAIKA
S/O LACHAMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
12. MENGLI BAI
W/O TAVARYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
13. N H NANJUNDAPPA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
-3-
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
14. SHANTHA
W/O NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
15. HEERYA NAIKA
S/O HALA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
IDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
16. OMKARI NAIKA
S/O GOPYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
17. LACHAMA NAIK @ LAKSHA NAIKA
S/O HOBI NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
18. ABDUL GHANI SAB
S/O MD EMAM SAB
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
19. NAGARATHNA
D/O GOPAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
20. THIMMAKKA
D/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
-4-
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
21. KANNIYAMMA
S/O KANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
22. MANJUNATH
S/O SHETTIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
23. NANJAPPA @ SANNA NANJAPPA
S/O DODDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
24. VEERAPAKSHA
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
25. ANASUYA @ ANUSUYAMMA
W/O AKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
26. JAYAMMA
W/O BAJYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
27. HONNAMMA
W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
-5-
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
28 SHIVU
S/O NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
29 B N SRIDHARA
S/O NAGARAJ RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
30 JYOTHI
D/O LAKSHMI BAI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
31 NAGARATHNA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
32 MANJULA
W/O NARASIMHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
33 TAMMA NAIKA
S/O CHANDYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
34 DURGA NAIKA
S/O NAGU NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
-6-
35 KOLLAMMA
W/O SIDDAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
36 SUNDAR
S/O SHIVAJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
37 HOBI NAIKA
S/O TAVRYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
38 RAMA NAIKA @ RAJU NAIKA
S/O OMYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
39 SANNA RAJU E
S/O ESHWAR NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
40 GOVINDAPPA
S/O NARALLI VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
41 SOMLA NAIKA
S/O LALYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
-7-
42 C V ERANNAIAH
S/O C D VEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
43 CHANDRA NAIKA
S/O PUTTA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
44 SAROJAMMA
W/O MADE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
45 GANGADHARAPPA @ GANESH
S/O SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
46 ANWAR SAB
S/O BUDEN SAB
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
47 SURESH
S/O GANAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
48 RUDRA NAIK
S/O DELLA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
49 LOKYA NAIKA
-8-
S/O HEMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
50 SRIRAMA BHATTA
S/O PADMANABHA BATTA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
51 SAINA NAIKA
S/O RAMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
52 CHANDRA NAIKA
S/O RAMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
53 BALASUBRAMANI
S/O NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
54 SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O GOVIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
55 SOMLA NAIKA
S/O NAGYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
56 SHOBHA
D/O DEVAPPA
-9-
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
57 KARI GOWDA
S/O KEMPABOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
58 SATHISH @ YATHISH
S/O VENKATA NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
59 TOLCHA NAIKA
S/O THAVU NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
60 NAGARATHNA
W/O MRUTHYUNJAYA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
61 DURGI BAI
W/O TAVARYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
62 SARAMMA
W/O USMAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
63 IBRAHIM
S/O AHAMED
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
- 10 -
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
64 THIMMEGOWDA
S/O SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
65 MUNNI
W/O MUNNA SAB
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
66 VENKATESHA
S/O KORAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
67 HANUMANTHARAYA
S/O DODDA NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
68 SURESH RAO
S/O GANESH RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
69 SURESHA H
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
70 VENKATARAM
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
- 11 -
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
71 P GOPAL ACHAR @ GOPAL
S/O P PRAHALLADA CHARI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
72 SHANKARAMMA
W/O BHARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
73 GANGAMMA
W/O KRISHNA RAME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
74 PADMAMMA
W/O NINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
75 GOPA NAIKA @ GOPYA NAIKA
S/O BHAJANI NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
76 UMBALA NAIKA
S/O SAKRA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
77 DODDI BAI
W/O CHANDA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
- 12 -
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
78 MANGALA
W/O KRISHNA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
79 PARVATHI BAI
W/O JATHRA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
80 SHANTHI BAI
W/O SAKRYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
81 PARI BAI
W/O VALYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
82 UMLI BAI
W/O SANYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
83 MANJA NAIKA
S/O KEERYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
84 BHAJANI NAIKA
S/O SAKRA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
- 13 -
85 ERI BAI
W/O BASAPPA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
86 MANJU NAIKA
S/O RAMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
87 SUSHEELAMMA
W/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
88 RAMA
S/O KHNDOJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
89 KUMAR K
S/O KANNAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
90 CHIKKANNA
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
91 ANAND
S/O ANNA MALAI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
- 14 -
92 NAGAMMA
W/O AMAVASE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
93 RAJU D
S/O DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
94 DEVARAJ
S/O BAJJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
95 SEKHA MOHIDDEEN
S/O ABBU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
96 KRISHNA
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
97 T G ROBERT
S/O T S JEORGE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
98 DINESH
S/O KODAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
99 RATHNA KUMAR
- 15 -
S/O VEERABHDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
100 RANI @ MARY
W/O JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
101 NAGARAJU
S/O KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
102 LOKI BAI
W/O SAKRYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
103 PAPA NAIKA
S/O ASSU NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
104 TAKYA NAIKA
S/O PURYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
105 RAMANI BAI
W/O NAGARAJA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
106 NANJA BAI
W/O M D OMKARI NAIKA
- 16 -
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
107 MANJA NAIKA
S/O ARASA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
108 RUKMINI BAI
W/O LACHMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
109 MEENAKSHI BAI
W/O SHIVAPPA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
110 PAPI BAI
W/O ANNAPPA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
111 SHANMUKHA NAIKA
S/O SAKRYA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
112 MANJA NAIKA
S/O RAMA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
113 SURYA NAIKA
S/O SEETHY NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
- 17 -
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
114 SURESH
S/O GANAPATHI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
115 NALINA R @ NALINA
W/O SHIVANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
116 DRAKSHAYINAMMA
W/O THIPPESHI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
117 CHANDRA NAIKA
S/O LACHHA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT MALAVAGOPPA VILLAGE
NIDHIGE HOBLI
SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H. KANTHARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.H DAYANANDA
SARASWATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
SHIMOGA
- 18 -
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT
IN KARNATAKA
5TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
SHIMOGA
5 CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SHIMOGA
REP BY ITS COMMISIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R 1 TO 4
AND SRI. BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 8.3.2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
SHIMOGA VIDE ANNEXURE-G ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners claiming to be the residents of Malavagoppa, Nidhige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk and District are seeking for quashing of the order dated 8.3.2011 bearing No.LND(1)CR:574/2008-09 passed by the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga vide Annexure-G whereunder an extent of 9 acres 36 guntas in survey number 56 and 57 has been transferred to the Regional Transport Authority, Shimoga for purposes of
- 19 -
establishing a driving track and permitting conversion of the said land for non agricultural purposes. Petitioners are also seeking for a direction to 5th respondent City Municipal Council, Shimoga to issue katha in their favour in respect of the houses in their occupation situated in the land bearing survey No.56 and 57 of Malavagoppa village.
2. Heard Sri H.Kantharaja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri H. Dayanand Saraswathi for petitioners and Smt. Nagashree, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Balagangadhar, learned counsel appearing for R5. Perused the records.
3. It is the contention of petitioners that they have constructed houses in land bearing survey Nos.56 and 57 of Malavagoppa village, Shimoga Taluk and District and they have been residing in the said houses from long number of years i.e. for more than 25 years and Mandal Panchayath of Malavagoppa has recognised their occupation and has passed resolutions to
- 20 -
regularise their occupation. It is also contended that Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath resolved to issue Hakku patras in favour of those persons who are in occupation and to allot the very same sites/houses in favour of persons and also not to grant to any other legal body, society or local body etc., as per resolution dated 27.12.1991 and 28.8.1991 as per Annexure-B and B1 respectively. It is further contended that in the year 1988, Grama Pahchayath has passed a resolution to issue Hakku patras and had issued temporary kathas as per resolution dated 25.2.1988, 4.1.1989 and 12.2.1990 at Annexures B2, B3 and B4 and they are paying taxes in respect of their houses and copies of the tax paid receipts for the years 1989-90 to 1991-92 are produced at Annexures C-1 to C-45 respectively. It is contended that record of rights for the years 1989-90 to 1999-2000 as per Annexure-A & A1 respectively which relates to lands in question would reflect that some houses have been built in survey No.57 of Malavagoppa village which goes to show that petitioners are in possession of the property and even in the Tax Demand
- 21 -
Register extract maintained by the Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath for the years 1989-90 to 1991-92, names of petitioners have been entered by assigning the property number and panchayath had an intention to allot sites and as such temporary katha was issued in favour of petitioners and they were under the bonafide impression that Mandal Panchayath will issue kathas and Hakku patas in their favour and in spite of effective and prompt efforts put in by them katha could not be obtained by them and in the mean while in the year 1995, the property has been brought within the jurisdiction of City Municipal Council, Shimoga, and as such, petitioners have made repeated requests to City Municipal Council, Shimoga, i.e. 5th respondent herein to issue katha and it was refused on the ground that there was a criminal case pending before JMFC, Shimoga in CC No.236/1986 which admittedly had ended in acquittal by a judgment dated 4.8.2004 and as such, there is no impediment for the 5th respondent to issue katha in favour of petitioners and on account of inaction by the respondents, petitioners are seeking for
- 22 -
a Writ of Mandamus to 5th respondent to issue katha in their favour.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners would further elaborate his submissions by contending that respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioners during November 2011 and on enquiry, petitioners' learnt that second respondent had transferred the land bearing No.56 and 57 of Malavagoppa village in favour of transport department and petitioners have submitted representations to the second respondent - Chief Minister as also the Chief Secretary and have lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police against Transport department which is at Annexures F, F1 and F2. He further contends that on obtaining copy of the impugned order, petitioners came to know that lands in question have been transferred to the department of transport and during the month of March 2012 Transport Department who with the assistance of police have demolished the construction made by the petitioners and taken forcible possession and commenced the work and in spite of
- 23 -
resistance and protest and possession has been taken forcibly and contends that on account of inaction by the State Government and also 5th respondent, petitioners are perforced to approach this court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court for the reliefs claimed in writ petition.
5. Learned counsel Sri Kantharaja would also submit that order of transferring land vide impugned order dated 8.3.2011 at Annexure-G is an illegal order, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. He contends that the said order is liable to be quashed on the following grounds:
A. The lands in question were reserved for the purposes of granting sites to petitioners by Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath and petitioners are in possession of the same. The Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath has passed resolution whereunder it was resolved to allot the very sites/houses in favour of petitioners and site less persons and the said resolution of the Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath has not been
- 24 -
annulled, set aside and not questioned by any authority and same is binding on all respondents. B. As per Government order dated 20.5.1970 Annexure-R1, beneficiary department has to obtain approval of the scheme under which it has proposed to put the land in use, and it is mandatory and in the instant case, no such scheme has been formulated by the user department and approved by Government. Request made by the transport department to the Deputy Commissioner seeking approval does not relate to the survey numbers in question. C. Deputy Commissioner has not followed the conditions stated in Annexure-R1 dt. 20.5.1970 namely he has not collected market prices of the lands in question as determined by him under Rule 20(1)(c) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules and contends that no price is fixed and hence, the order impugned based on the order of 20.5.1970 of the Government is without authority of law. D. Petitioners are in settled possession over the property in question and without issuing notice to them and violating the principles of natural justice impugned order has been passed and as such it is liable to be quashed.
- 25 -
E. Petitioners cannot be dispossessed without due process of law.
6. By way of alternate submission he would contend that the State with the intention of dispossessing the petitioners from the lands in question and to defeat the rights of the petitioners and ignoring the fact that adjacent to the lands in question there is an extent of 977.22 acres of land in survey No.120 which can be made use of by the Road Transport department if they really intend to put the land for the purposes now it is sought to be used has passed the impugned order. He would contend that in said survey No.120 of Sogane village of Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath, Shimoga District, different departments of the Government have been allotted lands and likewise the Transport Department could also be allotted land in the said survey number without disturbing the possession of petitioners. On these grounds, he would further contend that in view of the fact that criminal case filed by the State against the members of the Malavagoppa
- 26 -
Mandal Panchayath, having ended in acquittal, there is no impediment for the 5th respondent under whose jurisdiction, property is now vested to issue katha and a direction may be issued to the 5th respondent to issue said katha in favour of these petitioners. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks for allowing Writ Petitions by granting the prayer sought for therein.
7. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following judgments:
(1) 2009(4) KCCR 2691 (DB) - Smt. Madamma Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others.
(2) 2002(5) KLJ 302 - K Doddahanumaiah Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore & Others.
8. Per contra, Smt. Nagashree, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submit that on account of density of vehicle population in Shimoga District which has increased by metes and bounds and no land being available to the existing Regional Transport Office ('RTO' for short), they were perforced to seek grant of
- 27 -
land from the Government and as such, endeavors were being made in this regard by respondent No.3 and she contends that a meeting was held in this regard which was chaired by Deputy Commissioner of Shimoga in respect of transfer of land in survey No.72 of Savalanga Road, Navule village on 28.8.2008 and 30.8.2008 as reflected in communication dated 20.02.2009 Annexure-R3, whereunder it was resolved that a formal proposal is to be submitted by 3rd respondent and same was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner by third respondent on 6.10.2008 by identifying the lands in question which even according to the revenue authorities were Government phada land which was a vacant and not in occupation of any persons as per the certificate issued by 5th respondent dated 23.5.2012 Annexure-R6 and contends that taking these factual aspects into consideration, lands in question was ordered to be handed over to the transport department by the second respondent. She would further contend that while submitting the proposal and during its process thereafter, a representation was also given on
- 28 -
20.3.2010 as per Annexure- R4 to the second respondent specifying the lands in question as same is ideal for the use by Regional Transport Office for the purpose of establishing a driving track, putting up residential quarters for the purposes of use and occupation by the officers of the Government working in RTO and furnishing the budgetary proposal therein which are in consonance with law and as such she contends impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and does not call for interference of this court and prays that Writ Petitions be dismissed.
9. She would further elaborate her submission by contending that photographs produced as per Annexure-R5 would clearly go to show that the land measuring 9 acres 36 guntas situated in survey Nos.56 & 57 of Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath has been handed over to the 4th respondent and possession certificate dated 18.04.2011 Annexure-R.7 would also evidence this fact. She would contend that photographs would go to show that construction activity has started in full swing and contends that 30% of the work has
- 29 -
already been completed and contends that an order of statusquo came to be passed on 25.4.2012 which has hampered further construction activity and as such, an application dated 28.5.2012 for vacating the impugned order has been filed and submits that if the said order is not vacated and Writ Petitions are not dismissed and respondents 3 and 4 would be put to great inconvenience and hardship and the construction now carried on being in public interest same should be allowed to be continued and she contends that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners. She would further submit that Deputy Commissioner is vested with power to allot the land in favour of user department of the Government by virtue of Government order dated 20.5.1970 Annexure-R1 and the conditions stipulated therein having been complied, no fault can be found in allotment of such land in favour of 3rd respondent and as such, she seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
10. Sri Balagangadhar, learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent would support the arguments
- 30 -
advanced by the learned High Court Government Pleader and hasten to add that order of transfer from the Deputy Commissioner to 3rd respondent RTO in respect of the lands in question, there is no infirmity and under section 10 of the Panchayath Raj Act, no land vests with the Panchayath unless such transfer to it is by the Government, which itself have not been established that as such petitioners cannot claim that they have vested right, title over the property in question and any resolution passed by the Mandal Panchayath would not be binding on 5th respondent and it is on account of this fact, endorsement or communication dated 23.5.2012 Annexure-R6 came to be issued to the third respondent intimating that no katha has been issued to any person in respect of lands in question. He would further contend that averments made in paragraph 9 of the Writ Petitions against 5th respondent has no merit in as much as 5th respondent is not a party to CC No.236/1996 and any finding given therein is not binding on the 5th respondent and it cannot be made use of by petitioners against 5th
- 31 -
respondent. On these grounds, he seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties, this court is of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the order dated 21.8.2011 Annexure-G passed by 2nd respondent transferring land to an extent of 9 acres 36 guntas in Sy.Nos. 56 & 57 of Malavaguppa village, Nidhige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk in favour of 3rd respondent-RTO is liable to be quashed/set aside or affirmed.?
(2) What order.
12. Facts in brief leading to filing of these Writ Petitions are as under:
Land in question was originally allotted by the Government in favour of M/s.Thungabhadra Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd., On account of amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, brought about, a declaration was filed by the said M/s. Thungabhadra
- 32 -
Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd., under section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, under which the said Sugar factory was allowed to retain an extent of 50 units under section 63(8) for research and seed farming purpose and the remaining land was ordered to be resumed in favour of the Government by order dated 15.6.1979 and said order of the Government has been gazetted as per Annexure-R2. Schedule to the said gazette would reflect that certain lands in Malavaguppa village which had been granted to Thungabhadra Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd., was also resumed by Government which includes 2 acres 11 guntas in survey No.56 and 7 acres 25 guntas in survey No.57 in all 9 acres 36 guntas.
13. The bone of contention in these Writ Petitions is in respect of these lands. On the one hand petitioners contend that they are in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and to buttress their argument they heavily rely upon resolutions passed by the Malavaguppa Mandal panchayath which are at Annexure-B1, B2, B3 and B4 and also the RTC extracts
- 33 -
for the years 1989-90 to 1999-2000. On the other hand, respondents 1 to 4 contend that land was resumed as per order dated 15.7.1979 as evidenced from Annexure-R2 and it continued to be in possession of Government and at no point of time, petitioners were in occupation of survey Nos.56 and 57 or atleast to the extent of land now transferred to third respondent by order impugned in these Writ Petitions.
14. In this factual background, let me examine the contentions raised by learned Counsel appearing for petitioners as enumerated hereinabove. RE. CONTENTION: A
15. The main thrust of argument advanced by Sri Kantharaja, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners is that the rights of the petitioners would emanate from their continued possession as evidenced from the resolutions of the Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath which are at Annexures B1, B2, B3 and B4 as also the RTC extracts at Annexure-A. A perusal of these documents would clearly go to show that in the RTC
- 34 -
extract, it has been specifically mentioned as "PÉ®ªÀÅ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ½ªÉ" (in some portion residential buildings are located). In the resolutions referred to by the learned counsel for petitioner, Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath has resolved that allotment of sites can be made at the level of Village Panhayath itself and also that the said lands should not be allotted to any other institutions.
16. A perusal of the resolution dated 28.8.1991 Annexure-B1 would go to show that it was resolved in its meeting to prepare a file and forward it to the Tahsildar, Shimoga with a request to allot sites in these lands to site less persons. In the resolution dated 4.1.1999 at Annexure-B3, Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath has resolved to request the Tahsildar to initiate "acquisition proceedings" in respect of the lands in question for being allotted to site less persons. The documents produced by the petitioner along with the Writ Petitions does not go to show that the said lands have been granted either to the Mandal Panchayath by the State or by any other authority at any point of time
- 35 -
and it is the self serving testimony of petitioners that they are in possession of the said lands. As per Gazette notification dated 15.7.1979 produced at Annexure-R1, it evidences the fact that Government had resumed possession of various lands including the lands in question. In that view of the matter it cannot be construed or thought of as to how Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath came into possession of the said land at all. In the absence of any material to establish settled possession of the petitioners over the lands in question, this court would not be able to recognise the resolution passed by the Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath as clothing the petitioners with any right to the property in question or to recognize their alleged settled possession over the property in question. A perusal of the resolution dated 28.08.1991 - Annexure-B1 and 04.01.1999 - Annexure-B3 would also go to show that a resolution has been passed by it whereunder it has been resolved to request Shimoga Tahashildar to initiate acquisition proceedings. Said resolutions being only recommendatory, it has no binding effect on its
- 36 -
surveyor. Hence, contention No.(1) raised by learned counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted and it stands rejected.
RE.CONTENTION B:
17. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that by virtue of Government order dated 20.5.1970, second respondent exercising power vested in it has ordered for allotting lands in favour of the third respondent, to an extent of 2 acres 11 guntas in survey No.56 and 7 acres 25 guntas in survey No.57 and in all 9 acres 36 guntas. It has been contended by Mr. Kantharaja, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners that second respondent has not followed the conditions stipulated in the said order of Government dated 20.5.1970 Annexure-R1 while allotting land in question to third respondent in as much as Government Order dated 20.5.1970 mandates that when the land is being transferred to other departments by the Government, the user department should have obtained approval of the scheme for utilisation of such land after having
- 37 -
provided necessary budgetary provision and in the absence thereof said transfer becomes void.
18. In order to appreciate the said contention, let me examine the documents produced by respondent Nos.1 to 4 along with their statement of objections. Communication dated 20.2.2009 at Annexure-R3 which has emanated from the office of the RTO to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, would clearly go to show that process of handing over lands in question commenced way back in the year 2000 itself and as a prelude to the said fact two meetings have been held under the Chairmanship of 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District on 28.8.2008 and 30.8.2008 and in furtherance of it, said letter dated 20.2.2009 Annexure-R3 has been forwarded from the office of the third respondent to second respondent with a request to grant 15 acres of land namely the entire land in survey No.56 and 57 of Malavagoppa village for the purposes of 'driving track' establishment. Said communication no doubt does not specify the survey number. However, it is specifically mentioned in the
- 38 -
said communication dated 20.2.2009 Annexure-R3 that land is situated at Savalanga road, behind JSS college, may be granted to them by specifying the area as "Malavagoppa'. This was followed by a letter dated 9/20.02/03.2010 Annexure-R4 from third respondent to second respondent wherein survey numbers of the lands have not been mentioned rightly pointed out by Sri. H. Kantharaja. However, the details of the land has been mentioned by giving reference to the joint spot inspection conducted by the Road Transport authorities along with the Deputy Commissioner wherein details of the topography of the land sought for by it has been clearly mentioned under said Communication Annexure-R3 third respondent has submitted a proposal to 2nd respondent. A perusal of said communication would clearly go to show that third respondent intended to utilise this land for the purposes of establishing "driving track" and establishment of residential quarters to RTO officials by making budgetary provision in its budget for the year 2010- 2011 by enclosing the budget proposal as Annexure to
- 39 -
said Communication as mentioned therein. On receipt of said representation, second respondent - Deputy Commissioner has secured reports from the office of the Tahsildar, Shimoga as also the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga, vide reports dated 22.5.2010 and 8.9.2010 and also by taking into consideration earlier reports of the Tahsildar dated 14.8.2008, 13.8.2009 and 18.8.2009 has passed the impugned order ordering for transfer of land in favour of 3rd respondent.
19. The conditions stipulated in the Government order dated 20.5.1970 is that the department asking for the land should have an approved scheme for utilisation of the land with the necessary budgetary provisions. The Road Transport Authority in its communication dated 9/20.2/3.2010 - Annexure-R4 has specified as to the utilisation of the land as per the scheme and necessary budgetary provision made by it for putting the land to which it is being sought has also been specified in the said communication addressed to the second respondent. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is any infraction by the second
- 40 -
respondent in not adhering to the conditions stipulated in the Government Order dated 20.5.1970. In that view of the matter, the second contention-B raised by the learned counsel for petitioners does not merit acceptance and it stands rejected.
RE CONTENTION:C
20. One of the contentions raised by Sri H.Kantharaja, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners is that grant of land is made by the Deputy Commissioner and 50% of the market value of the land had to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner and same had to be collected form the user department as required under clause (C) of sub Rule (1) of Rule 20 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and in the instant case, no such determination has been made or the amount has been collected and as such, it is in violation of said statutory provisions and seeks for quashing impugned order on this ground. Rule 20 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 reads as under:
"20. Grant of land to Housing Board, (Grama Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat, Zilla
- 41 -
Panchayat), Co-operative Societies and other Statutory Board.-
(1) Lands may be granted by the Deputy Commissioner with the prior approval of the State Government under these rules to-
(a) The Karnataka Housing Board, (or any Urban Development Authority) free of cost for construction of houses under the subsidized rental housing scheme or subsidised industrial housing scheme and on payment of fifty percent of the market value in all other cases;
(b) (Grama Panchayats, Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats) free of cost for construction of schools, hospitals, dispensaries and public amenities and such other purposes deemed obligatory under (the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993);
(c) Co-operative Societies and Statutory bodies like the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, The (Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation)etc., on collection of 50 percent of market value to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner:
- 42 -
(d) The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, free of cost except the areas in Zone-A notified in G.O. No. CI 167 CP 2001, dated 30th June, 2001, i.e., Bangalore District and Bangalore Rural District excluding Kanakapura and Magadi Taluks) (Provided that where the extent of the land does not exceed (four hectares), no such prior approval shall be necessary) (2) If the lands granted (under sub-rule (1)(a) to (d) are not utilised for the purpose for which they are granted, (the same shall be resumed by the state Government free from all encumbrances). The State Government shall not be liable to pay any compensation or damages for the lands so resumed."
21. A perusal of the said Rule would go to establish that whenever grant is made by Deputy Commissioner to the authorities mentioned therein, payment as specified therein will have to be made by the user department after determination by the Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, learned counsel for
- 43 -
petitioners has specifically drawn the attention of the court to clause (c) of Sub Rule (1) of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. A perusal of the said provision would go to show that it is attracted only when the land is allotted to the institutions specified therein namely co-operative society, statutory bodies like Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation, etc., which means a Corporation or a company managed or controlled by the Government since it would be a company constituted under the Indian Companies Act and such institution or company would be a separate and independent entity though controlled and managed by the Government and as such, 50% of the market value of the land is required to be collected from them and thereafter determining the value. In the instant case, we are not faced with such factual matrix at all in as much as it is one department of the Government which is handing over land to the other department or wing, namely the revenue department is transferring the land vested in it to the Transport Department and as such, clause (c) of
- 44 -
sub Rule (1) of Rule 20 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules is not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that view of the matter, contention- C also does not merit acceptance and it is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it stands rejected. RE CONTENTION: D & E:
22. There cannot be any dispute with regard to proposition of law raised by learned Counsel appearing for petitioners viz., no person can be dispossessed of his settled possession without due process of law. Thus, it is for the person who asserts settled possession to establish that he is in settled possession of the lands in question. The resolutions passed by the Malavagoppa Mandal Panchayath as per Annexures B1, B2, B3 and B4 would recede to the back ground in the light of the land having stood vested with the 5th respondent with effect from 1995-96 and the records having been transferred to 5th respondent which does not reflect that there has been any construction in existence in survey No.55, 56 and 57 or any Hakku pathras having been issued to any person or persons or katha having
- 45 -
been mutated in respect of these lands in favour of any person or persons as evidenced from the communication from the dated 25.3.2012 Annexure-R6 which has emanated from the office of the 5th respondent to 3rd respondent. Further, petitioners have not been able to produce or demonstrate before this court that they are in settled possession of the lands in question. At this stage, balance of convenience will have to be examined to protect the rights of the parties if they are in settled possession. In the absence of any positive material evidence being available on record no equity can be extended in favour of a person/s who seeks indulgence of this court. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1 to 4 along with their statement of objections have filed the photographs as per Annexure- R5 (9 Nos.) which clearly go to show that land shown therein is a vacant land without any building except half constructed building which is said to be the construction commenced by the Regional Transport Authority/4th respondent. The said land being vacant with thick shrubs grown around and there being no
- 46 -
human habitation in the said land, the contention of the petitioners that they are in settled possession over the lands in question i.e. survey No.56 and 57 would be too far fetched for being accepted as it does not even come within the vicinity or proximity of truth and as such, said contention is also not accepted and it stands rejected.
23. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners has relied upon two judgments of this court which are analysed as under:
RE: (1) 2009(4) KCCR 2691 (DB) (Smt.Madamma Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others.) In this case, it was noticed by the Division Bench of this court that lands in question have been granted to the petitioners therein way back in the year 1972 and said lands were was never resumed by Government and as such, this court has held that question of BDA notifying these lands for acquisition for being allotted to the educational institutions did not arise. In other words,
- 47 -
the Division Bench of this court has found that there was a due allotment made in favour of petitioners therein. By virtue of Government order No.DPC 15 DRH dated 13.5.1972 land less workers in Rural areas were proposed to be allotted house sites and said allottees were beneficiaries under the above scheme by the then Government and the report of the Inspector General of Police, COD, Bangalore, dated 22.12.1990, was taken into consideration whereunder, it was found that occupants of the lands were in possession pursuant to the Government order dated 13.5.1972 and they were in actual possession of sites. In fact, at paragraph 27 of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners, it is specifically mentioned that "allotment granted to the beneficiaries under the scheme" was not withdrawn or cancelled by Government and it was for this precise reason a question regarding possession was formulated and answered in affirmative in view of the earlier Government order of allotting lands to the families of land less workers in the year 1972 itself. In the instant case, there is no such material available on
- 48 -
record to conclude that petitioners are in settled possession of the properties in question either by allotment or by grant. On the other hand, over whelming material placed by respondents 1 to 4 would clearly go to show that it is a virgin vacant land and as such, judgment relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners does not come to the rescue.
RE: (2) 2002(5) KLJ 302 K Doddahanumaiah Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore & Others.
In this matter, it was noticed by the Tahsildar who made a spot inspection that petitioners and other and two adjacent owners of the land had encroached upon survey Nos.33 and 34 connecting NH No.48 and as such, he issued notice to them and passed an order to evict petitioners from the alleged " £ÀPÁ±É". In fact this court has come down heavily on the petitioners itself on the ground that petitioners were knowing fully well that lands in question was reserved for public purpose and it could not have been encroached upon. In the words of this court said finding reads as under:
- 49 -
"Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner itself would suffice for this court to pass adverse remarks against the petitioner"
24. However, it is necessary to observe at this juncture that in the instant case what has been granted to the respondent No.3 under the impugned order is 9 acres 36 guntas i.e. 2 acres 11 guntas in surveyNo.56 and 7 acres 25 guntas in survey No.57. Still balance of 6 acres is not yet disposed of in these two survey numbers. This order would not come in the way of respondents considering the request of the petitioner if made or pending before this court for grant of land in this area if they are in alleged possession as contended and subject to their claim being in accordance with law.
25. In that view of the matter, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner would not assist the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and the said judgment is held to be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
- 50 -
26. In view of the findings given hereinabove, point No.1 formulated is to be answered by holding that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by 2nd respondent.
27. RE POINT NO.2: As per the following:
ORDER (1) Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed. (2) Order passed by 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga dated 20.6.2012 at Annexure-E is hereby confirmed.
(3) No order as to costs.
(4) In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, all IAs. Pending for consideration does not survive.
Hence, they stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL