Karnataka High Court
Jayaramappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 19 August, 2013
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.4172 & 5243/2012 (KLR - LG)
BETWEEN:
1. Jayaramappa
S/o. Rajappa
Aged about 60 years
2. Smt. Bhagyamma
W/o. Jayaramappa
Aged about 55 years
Both are agriculturists
R/o. Obalapura Village
Parashurampura Hobli
Challakere Taluk
Chitradurga District. ...Petitioners.
(By Sri Veerabhadraiah for Sri.B. Pramod, Adv.)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner
Chitradurga District
Chitradurga - 577 501
2. The Asst. Commissioner
-2-
Chitradurga Sub-Division
Chitradurga - 577 501
3. The Tahsildar
Challakere Taluk
Challakere
Chitradurga District
4. Shivanandappa
S/o. Meke Thippanna
Major
R/o Thimmannanaikana Kote
Parashurampura Hobli
Challakere Taluk
Chitradurga District ...Respondents.
(By Smt.M.C. Nagashree, HCGP for R-1 to 3,
Sri.H.S. Prasad Kumar, Adv. for R-4)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash
the impugned order of R1 - Deputy Commissioner at
Annexure F dt.28.9.2011 and also the impugned order
of the R2 at Annexure-E dated 23.9.2003 as illegal by
issuing a writ of certiorari and consequently, restore the
saguvali chit at Annexure A issued by the R3 in respect
of land bearing No.31/2 measuring 4-38 acres situated
in Obalapura Village, Parashurampura Hobli,
Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing in B Group this day, the court made the
following: -
-3-
ORDER
Writ petitioners are husband and wife, who are residents of Obalapura Village, Parashurampura Hobli, Challakere Taluk and District. It appears they had made an application to the Tahsildar, Challakere Taluk in Form No.53 claiming that they are in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of an extent of 4 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.31/1 of Obalapura Village, Challakere Taluk and they were in such unauthorized occupation and cultivation ever since the year 1990 etc. It appears the said application along with similar applications had been placed before the Committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation and the Committee as per its proceedings dated 11.1.2002 had approved the grant of an extent of 2 acres 38 guntas of land in favour of the writ petitioners and other extents in favour of other applicants. The Tahsildar took follow- -4- up action by issue of necessary documents in this regard.
2. These grant orders particularly proceeding in No.RUC (P) SR 34/2001-2002 and also related proceedings of the Committee and the Tahsildar of the even date in favour of other persons had been questioned before the Asst. Commissioner, Challakere Sub-Division, Challakere, by the 4th respondent herein by filing Appeal No.6/2002-2003. The 4th respondent had claimed that he is a resident of the said Village; that all the grantees were persons, who had already sufficient holding; that the available gomal land is not sufficient for the grazing of the cattle; that in such circumstances, the land in question could not have been granted to several grantees under the proceedings dated 19.1.2002 and also that the grantees were not cultivating the land and it had been left barren. The Asst. Commissioner held an enquiry, heard the counsel appearing for the parties and insofar as the petitioners -5- are concerned he found that the writ petitioners, particularly, 1st petitioner had a holding of 4 acres 8 guntas of land in Lakshmanapally Village, Challakere Taluk, and therefore, passed an order that the writ petitioners were not entitled to the grant and as the Committee did not consider these aspects, accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the proceedings made by the committee relating to No.RUC (P) SR 34/2001-2002 as per the order dated 23.9.2003.
3. Aggrieved by this order, writ petitioners and the persons, who had been granted land under the proceedings in RUC (P) SR No.33/2001-2002 had preferred further appeals to the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner also held an enquiry, examined the records and objections raised on behalf of the appellants as well as the respondents. But ultimately found that the writ petitioners, who were husband and wife had a holding of an extent of 4 acres -6- 8 guntas of land in Lakshmanapally Village and the granted land has also not been cultivated, moreover, the available gomal land was not sufficient for the grazing of 1,468 cattle and therefore, found no occasion to interfere with the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner. Accordingly, dismissed the appeal as per order dated 28.09.2011. It is aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner, the present writ petitions.
4. Notice had been issued to the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are represented by Smt.M.C. Nagashree, learned HCGP.
5. Mr. Veerabhadraiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently urged that neither the Asst. Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner had called for survey report to determine the number of cattle in the village, the available extent of gomal land -7- and as to whether further extent of gomal land could have been regularized in favour unauthorized occupants etc. It is also submitted that even the holdings attributing to the petitioners has not been properly verified and therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable. Mr. Veerabhadraiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners had been cultivating the land even prior to 14.4.1990 and therefore, there was no occasion for the Asst. Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner to have opined the other way, just because 4th respondent had given certain photos.
6. On the other hand, Smt. Nagashree, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the Asst. Commissioner had independently found that petitioners were holding an extent of 4 acres 8 guntas of land in Lakshmanapally Village and also found even the other grantees were sufficient land holders and the -8- position of available gomal land also was not satisfactory with reference to the number of cattle in the Village, which were 1,468 in number and therefore, allowed the appeals and this fact has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in his order. It is therefore submitted that there is no occasion to interfere with these orders.
7. The Asst. Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner both found that there is no report before them about the extent of holdings the applicants had, who had claimed to be in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the lands. In the absence of the report, the Committee could not have assumed that they were not sufficient holders. Notwithstanding the Committee had gone ahead to grant land to the applicants. The Deputy Commissioner concurred with the reasoning's given the Asst. Commissioner and found no occasion to vary the same. It is therefore, he dismissed the appeal. -9- When the two Appellate Authorities had found as a matter of fact not only the petitioners were sufficient holders, but also held that the available gomal land was not adequate to the cattle grazing in the village, it cannot be said the orders suffer from any illegality. The impugned orders does recite that enquiry had been held, records have been perused and findings had been recorded.
8. In the circumstances, on such findings of fact, I do not find any need for interference in writ jurisdiction it is therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG*