Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kempamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2022
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.22120 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT.KEMPAMMA
WIFE OF SAMPATH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT THIMMABHOVIPALYA
SHIVANAPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 162.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri : SARAVANA.S., ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KANDHAYA BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri:R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA, FOR R-1 & 2)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE THE
APPLICATIONS FILED AS PER ANNEXURE-B, IN
PROCEEDINGS NO.LND.3/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU, RESPONDENT NO.2
BEFORE CONSIDERING THE CASE ON MERIT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents. Although the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, for the reasons stated herein, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter can be disposed of at this stage itself.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on an earlier occasion, he had challenged the formation of residential layout to demarcate the sites for site-less persons, on the ground that there was no proper order passed by the Deputy Commissioner reducing the extent of gomal lands and when such an exercise having not -3- been undertaken by the authorities, the sites could not have been formed and distributed. This Court in writ petition Nos.10801-815/2017, considered the submissions of the petitioner and other aggrieved persons and passed an order dated on 12-07-2017 remitting the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law for passing an order afresh. The petitioners therein were directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 03-08-2017 and file their objections if any, whereupon the Deputy Commissioner was required to consider such objections and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. It was also made clear that it was open for the impleading applicants to appear before the Deputy Commissioner and file their objections, producing necessary documents whereupon the Deputy Commissioner was required to consider the same with the objections filed by the petitioners therein.
-4-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order sheets maintained by the Deputy Commissioner. On 29-06-2018, the Deputy Commissioner noticed that although the officials of the Grama Panchayat and the concerned Tahsildar were required to submit necessary information regarding the extent of gomal lands available for pasturing, the number of cattle heads etc., none of the information was made available. Therefore, on 29-06-2018 the Deputy Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to file a report along with necessary documents, in this regard. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that inspite of such a direction given by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner having not submitted any report, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to post the matter as "heard" and reserved for orders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although an application has been filed on 19-11-2021 -5- before the Deputy Commissioner to recall the order dated 15-11-2021, from the stage of order for the purpose of consideration of application, no orders have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
5. It is evident from the material available on record that the Deputy Commissioner cannot proceed to pass any orders without verifying the records as to the extent of gomal lands available, the number of cattle heads in the village etc., and such information are made available to the Deputy Commissioner and in terms of the directions issued by this Court in writ petition Nos. Nos.10801-815/2017.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed not to proceed to pass any orders in the matter pending consideration, unless and until a report is obtained at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner and an opportunity is given to the -6- contesting parties to have their say on the report of the Assistant Commissioner.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE rsk