Karnataka High Court
Shree Sarva Shreshta Seva Ashrama vs The Govt Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2013
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION Nos.38485-38537/2012 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN :
1 SHREE SARVA SHRESHTA SEVA ASHRAMA
CHARITABLE TRUST (R)
NO. 24, MARUTHI NAGAR,
NEAR SHIVALING,
KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
GOTTIGERE B G ROAD,
BANGALORE
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI R VENKATESH
2 MURUGAN, 37 YRS
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
OCC: COOLIE
3 RAMALINGAM, 62 YRS
S/O CHIDAMBARAM
OCC: COOLIE
4 SURESH RAO
S/O NARAYANA RAO,
SINCE DEAD BY LR
SMT SHOBHA
W/O SURESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
2
5 SWAMIVELU, 42 YRS
S/O MANIKYAM,
OCC: COOLIE,
6 SATHYAMMA, 39 YEARS
W/O JAGADEESHWAR (RAJU)
OCC: COOLIE,
7 SAROJAMMA, 28 YRS
W/O KUMAR,
S/O KRISHNAPPA
OCC: COOLIE,
8 MANJULA, 48 YEARS
W/O DHARMARAJ
OCC: COOLIE,
9 MARAPPA
S/O M MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
10 DILIP, 38 YRS
S/O RAMANNA,
OCC: COOLIE,
11 JULLEK, 30 YEARS
D/O KARIM SAB
OCC: COOLIE,
12 RADHAMMA, 33 YEARS
W/O KRISHNAPPA
OCC: COOLIE,
13 REDDAMMA, 30 YRS
W/O KRISHNAPPA
OCC: COOLIE,
3
14 KAMALA, 30 YRS
W/O LINGARAJU
OCC: COOLIE,
15 PAPAMMA, 65 YRS
W/O LATE ABBAIAH
OCC: COOLIE,
16 BHOOPATAMMA, 32 YRS
W/O KRISHNAPPA
OCC: COOLIE,
17 MARIYAPPA, 60 YRS
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
OCC: COOLIE,
18 SUBBANNA, 55 YRS
S/O MUNIYAPPA
OCC: COOLIE,
19 JAHEER, 48 YRS
S/O PASHA SAB
OCC: COOLIE,
20 BABU S. 19 YRS
S/O ISMAIL SAB
OCC: COOLIE,
21 PADMA, 34 YRS
W/O SRINIVASAMURTHY
OCC: COOLIE,
22 GOVINDARAJ, 72 YRS
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
OCC: COOLIE,
23 RAMESH, 40 YRS
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
OCC: COOLIE,
4
24 VIJAYAKUMAR, 42 YRS
S/O NARAYAN,
CC: COOLIE,
25 R LAKSHMI, 376 YRS
W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
OCC: COOLIE,
26 DR B R AMBEDKAR BHAVAN
DSS SANGHA,
REPT. BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI R DHARMARAJ,
27 J SRINIVAS, 55 YRS
OCC: COOLIE
R/O MARUTI NAGAR,
28 PONNUSWAMY, 55 YRS
S/O SONDALIMATTU,
OCC: COOLIE
29 GANESH, 52 YRS
S/O NANJUNDAPPA
OCC: COOLIE
30 SHIVARAJU, 50 YRS
S/O VEERABHADRAIAH,
OCC: COOLIE
31 BABU, 55 YRS
S/O KARIM SAB,
OCC: COOLIE
32 PALANISWAMY,60 YRS
S/O CHINNAPPAIAH,
OCC: COOLIE
33 MOHAN, 58 YRS
S/O MUNIYAPPA
OCC: COOLIE
5
34 CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O SRINIVAS, 32 YRS
OCC: COOLIE
35 RAJESH, 40 YRS
S/O RAMAIAH,
OCC: COOLIE
36 BEEBI JAN, 68 YRS
S/O LATE KARIM SAB
OCC: COOLIE
37 YALLAMMA, 45 YRS
W/O K RAMANNA,
OCC: COOLIE
38 SAVITHRAMMA, 60 YRS
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
OCC: COOLIE
39 KARAGAPPA, 55 YRS
S/O PANNI CHIKKAIAH
OCC: COOLIE
40 DHANAPAL, 40 YRS
S/O KESHAV
OCC: COOLIE
41 R SRINIVAS, 40 YRS
S/O RANGAPPA,
OCC: COOLIE
42 DEVEGOWDA
S/O JANEGOWDA
AGED ABUOT 55 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE
43 R BABU S/O RAMAYYA,
35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
6
44 PUSHPA, 35 YRS
W/O DHANAPAL K
OCC: COOLIE
45 SHANTHA, 323 YRS
W/O DHANAPAL
OCC: COOLIE
46 S PALANI, 65 YRS
S/O SUBRAMANI
OCC: COOLIE
47 SHAKEEL DEV TAGORE
S/O BHUVAN TAGORE
52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
48 NARASIMHAIAH
58 YRS, S/O SINGAYYA,
OCC: COOLIE
49 LOKESH, 41 YRS
S/O DEVAIAH,
OCC: COOLIE
50 SARITHA, 29 YRS
W/O DEVAIAH,
OCC: COOLIE
51 HUSEN SAB
S/O RAJA SAB,
55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
52 LAKSHMI, 45 YRS
W/O VENKATARAM,
OCC: COOLIE
53 VENKATESH, 57 YRS
S/O OBALAPPA,
OCC: COOLIE
7
ALL R/O MARUTI NAGAR,
NEAR SHIVALING,
KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BBMP WARD NO. 194,
GOTTIGERE B.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560083. .. PETITIONERS
( By Sri S.S.Halalli, Advocate )
AND :
1 THE GOVT OF KARNATAKA
DEPT OF REVENUE,
REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE01.
2 THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BANGALORE-01.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-01.
4 THE TAHASILAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-09.
5. HILLAND PROPERTIES
NO.22/1, KAVERIAPPA LAYOUT,
MILLERS TANK BUND ROAD
BANGALORE-52,
8
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR
YOUSUF SHARIFF @ D.BABU. .. RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.M.C.Nagashree, HCGP for R-1, 3 and 4,
Sri Shashidhar S. Karmadi, Advocate for R-2,
Sri Chittappa, Advocate for R-5 (NOC filed)
alongwith Sri Reuben Jacob, advocate for R-5
and Sri Rajendrakumar Sungay, Spl.G.A.
For State )
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash an order dated
31.8.2012 passed by the R4 Tahasildar vide Annexure-K.
These Writ Petitions coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following :
ORDER
The petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 31.8.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar only in so far as it relates to protect the constructions made by the petitioners and to direct the respondent No.3 to regularise the construction of the building by reserving a portion of land under Ashraya Scheme and in the alternative, to direct the Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioners and to pass orders.
9
2. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties and the learned Government Pleader and Sri Rajendrakumar Sungay, learned Spl.Government Advocate. The statement of objections are filed by the respondents.
3. According to the petitioners, they are shelterless persons and they are eking out their livelihood by doing coolie work. Some belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. They are residing in a different extent of area by constructing houses in the area of 10 x 10 ft, 10x12 ft. 10x15 ft, and 15 x 20 ft. each and such construction is in the portion of Survey No.61, situated in Gottigere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which is said to be a `Gomal' land and the said Survey No.61 is a large extent of land. Even the basic amenities like road, water, electricity,sewerage and etc., have been provided to them. Inspections have been conducted to confirm that they are in occupation of the houses. According to them, Survey No.61 is totally measuring 10 acres 27 guntas and they are in occupation to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas since from more than 7 to 8 years. Accordingly, on various grounds, they have challenged 10 the order at Annexure-`F' passed by the 3 rd respondent-Tahsildar, by which the 3rd respondent held that the entire land is Government Gomal land and to evict the petitioners and other persons who are in unauthorised occupation of the land in question.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondents, it is noticed that the photographs produced also depict that hectic efforts have been made by the petitioners by putting up temporary sheds in order to claim the right and to assert their right over the Government Gomal land. The Tahsildar has passed the impugned order to evict the petitioners who are in unauthorised occupation as per Sections 94(3), 39 and 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules, 1964. It is seen that, such an order passed by the Tahsildar would be an appealable order. But, the petitioners have straight away come before this Court without exhausting the remedy before the Assistant Commissioner. It appears, there is an interim order granted by this Court. Even otherwise, the land in question belongs to the Government and it is stated by the 3 rd respondent-Tahsildar that 11 there is encroachment of the Government Gomal land by the petitioners by illegally occupying the same and seeking confirmation of their right by virtue of alleged occupation of the Government Gomal land. It is a matter concerned with the Government and the Government has to take a decision in the matter. Even the impugned order may be an appealable order. Any how, it is for the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal against the impugned order by the Tahsildar.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the order passed by the Tahsildar pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner is as a delegatee. In that view of the matter, it is for the petitioners to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal within one month from today and to get any other appropriate orders. In the meantime, the petitioners shall even move the government authorities at Government level and if the Government takes a policy decision in favour of the petitioners to accommodate them, then they may have that right.
12
While disposing of these writ petitions as not maintainable at this stage, petitioners are given one month time from today to approach the appropriate forum. Till one month time, the respondents-authorities are directed not to proceed against the petitioners, if not already evicted.
Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE bk/