Karnataka High Court
Narasimhaiah vs The Chief Secretary on 17 April, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
-1-
IN 'rHF HIGH COUR'l' OF K.ARNATAKA.
AT BANGALO RE
DATED THIS THE 1 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P. Nos.16347-16364/2011 (KLR--LG)
BETWEEN:
1 NARASIMHAIAH,
S/O. HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2 SMT. GANGANARASAMMA.
W/0 BYATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3 VENKATAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS SON
BYLANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
4 HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
S/0 BANGIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
5 SMT.MUNIYAMMA,
SINCE DEAD BY HER L.RS.
5(a) GANGAVENKATAIAH,
S/ 0. POOJAVENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
5(b) VENKATAIAH,
S / 0. POOJAVENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
5(c) SIDDAGANGAIAH,
S / 0. POOJAVENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
5(d) NARAYANASWAMY.
S / 0 POOJAVENKATAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
6 GANGAIAH.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS.
(a) KADRI NARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
S/0. LATE GANGAIAH,
(b) CHIKKANARASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
5/0. LATE GANGAIAH.
7 MARA HANUMAIAH,
Sb. RANGA BYRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
8 MUDDAMMA,
W/O.MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
9 KEMPAIAH,
S / 0. HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
10 SHEKARAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS.
WIFE SMT. SHIVAMMA,
11 B.GOPALAGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS.
a) SMT. KAMALAMMA.
W/O. LATE B.GOPALA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
12 BASAVARAJ,
S/O.SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
13 NAGACHARI.
S/O.SAVANDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
14 CHANNAVEERAIAH,
S / 0. GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
15 VIJINAPPA,
SI 0. NANJAMARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
16 KEMPAIAH,
S/O,BYLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
17 MUNINANJAMMA,
W/ 0. BYRANARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
18 SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
D / 0. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
ALL RESIDING AT BETHINAGERE
VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
PETITIONERS
(BY SRLN.RAGHUPATHY, ADV.,)
AND:
1 THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE- 1.
2 THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE01.
3 THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE9.
-4-
4 ASST. COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTh SUB-DIVISION,
PODIUM BLOCK,
BANGALORE-0 1.
5 THE TAHSILDAR.
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
BANGALORE-09.
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.
RAJEEV GANDHI GRAMEENA
VASAThI NIGAMA LTD.,
BAN GALO RE.
7 THE COMMITT'EE FOR REGULARIZATION
OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF
LANDS BY ITS SECRETARY,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK- 1. RESPONDENTS
. . .
(BY SRI.JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, AGA FOR Ri TO
R5 & R7, SMT.SUMANA BALIGA, ADV. FOR R6)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE ORDER OF THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 WHO IS THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER. BANGALORE IN HIS ORDER DATED
22.3.2011 GRANTING THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.46 OF
BETHANAGERE VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK FOR AKSHAYA SCHEME WITH
A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO TRANSFER
THE LANDS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.6 VIZ. RAJEEV
GANDHI GRAMEENA VASATHI NIGAMA LTD., BANGALORE
AS PER ANNEXURE-E. SO FAR AS ITEM NO.9 IN THE
ORDER ANNEXURE-E PERTAINING TO SY.NO.46 OF
BETHANAGERE VILLAGE ONLY AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY. THE COURT PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
ORDER
Petitioners claiming to be in unauthorised occupation of different extent of lands in survey No.46 of Bettinagere village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, were issued with notice of eviction by 5th respondent - Tahsildar on 1.3.1985 to evict the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said action of the Tahsildar, an appeal came to be filed in HA No.113/1986-87 before 4th respondent. The said appeal came to be allowed by order dated 31.1.1989 Annexure A in part with a direction to 5t1 respondent to issue individual notices, hold an enquiry and then pass appropriate orders in the matter and the appellants therein i.e. petitioners herein were also directed to appear before Tahsildar to put forth their grievances.
2. It is the contention of petitioners that no enquiry was held and as such, application submitted on behalf of petitioners to 4th respondent to issue direction to 5th respondent surprisingly, an endorsement came to be issued to the petitioners by 4th respondent at Annexure-B dated 30.11.2006 intimating that their Lr -6- applications filed in Form No.50 and 53 for regularisation of the Land in their unauthorised occupation have already been rejected. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, petitioners approached this court in WP No.6516/2007 seeking for quashing of the endorsement dated 30.11.2006 Annexure-B. In view of the fact that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Writ Petition came to be dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal against the order passed by the committee constituted for regularisation of unauthorised occupation by filing an appeal under section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, since by that time, the said committee constituted for regularisation of unauthorised cultivation i.e. 7th respondent by its resolution dated 1.4.2002 had already resolved to reject the applications filed by petitioners on the ground that lands which they have sought for regularisation of unauthorised occupation was within 18 kilometer -7- radius of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).
3. In view of liberty granted to petitioners In Writ Petition No.6516/2007, petItioners are said to have ified an appeal before 4th respondent In Appeal In 1241) No.202/2008-09 Annexure-D and when the matter was pending for orders, 3rd respondent has passed an order dated 22.3.2011 Annexure-E whereunder gomal land was dereserved by Government In exercise of Its power under Rule 97(4) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules which Is Impugned In the present Writ Petition.
4. It Is the contention of SrI Raghupathl, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that order of 3M respondent Is In violation of princIples of natural justice sInce petitioners have not been heard more particularly when the appeal Is pending adjudication before 4th respondent. It Is also contended that appeal ified by petitioners In Appeal No.202/2008-09 Is still pending and as such, the land In question which are In possession of the petitioner could not have been -8- reserved in favour of 6th respondent. It is also contended that lands in question are situated more than 35 krns away from the Corporation limits and conclusion arrived at by 7tt respondent - committee is erroneous and liable to be quashed. He would submit that 5tii or 7th respondent have not followed Rule 108D of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and no spot inspection was conducted to ascertain the distance and based on a vague report submitted by a village accountant, committee has resolved by its resolution dated 1.4.2002 that lands in question are within 18 kms radius of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike limits which is factually erroneous. It is also contended that petitioners are land less agriculturists and have been cultivating the lands in question for over 60 years and 7t1 respondent ought to have regularised their occupation.
5. Per contra, Srnt. Sumana Baliga, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 would support the impugned order by contending that 6t1 respondent Corporation in whose favour lands in question have -9- been ordered to be granted is for the purposes of providing sites to weaker section and persons coming from lower strata of the society and in order to ensure that shelter is made available to these houseless persons, lands in question have been allotted to 6t respondent for being exclusively used for the purposes of allotting sites to siteless persons under Ashraya scheme as provided under Rule 1 8A of Karnataka Land Grant Rules. 1969.
6. Sri Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1-5 and 7 would also defend the impugned order and contends that 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under sub rule (4) of Rule 97 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 has reserved Gomal land for distribution of house sites to site-less persons and there is no infirmity in the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the impugned order as also -10- the earlier order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.6516/2007 dated 20.10.2008 at Annexure-C. It would go to show that petitioners having filed applications for regularisatlon of their un-authorised cultivation/occupation of lands In question were agitating their right over the property and In fact bad even contested the notice Issued by Tahslldar to evict them by filing an appeal in RA No.113/1986-87 and had succeeded In the appeal as per Annexure-A. Having filed their applications before 7th respondent It was incumbent upon the petitioners to prosecute the said applications to Its logical end. However, by filing an application in the year 2006 to the 4th respondent and claiming Ignorance of any pending proceedings they were notified by an endorsement dated 30.11.2006 Annexure-B by 4th respondent whereunder petitioners were Informed of rejection of their applications. Even thereafter, they did not avail the alternative and efficacIous remedy of filing an appeal but Invoked extraordinary jurisdIction of this court by filing Writ Petition No.6516/2007 whIch came to be dismissed by -11- order dated 20.10.2008 Annexure-C. The only solace they could get was the liberty granted by this court to file an appeal against the order passed by the 7t1i respondent and as such, they have preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent in CR No.202/2008-09 and the appeal is pending before 4W respondent. Learned Government Advocate submitted that on account of transfer of the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, new incumbent has taken charge recently and necessary orders would be passed on the appeal after hearing the respective parties. Admittedly, there is no stay of the order dated 1.4.2002 passed by the 7t1 respondent rejecting the applications of petitioners and petitioners do not have any vested right to claim the lands in question, except taking recourse to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Admittedly. applications filed by them have been rejected way back in the year 2002 i.e. on 1.4.2002 itself. In this back ground, Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his power under sub rule (4) of Rule 97 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 has reserved the
- 12 -
lands in question for the purposes of allotment of sites to the site-less persons by the impugned order. It is specifically mentioned in the impugned order that as provided under Rule 18-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1969, the land allotted to 6th respondent is required to be utilised for the purposes of allotment of sites to site-less persons belonging to weaker section of the society. In view of the fact that there is no stay of operation of the order of the 7th respondent dated 1.4.2002 in pending Appeal No.202/08-09 said to be pending before the 4th respondent, no infirmity could be found in the impugned order.
8. Even otherwise, the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner in so far as it relates to the validity of the order passed by the 7t respondent is concerned, this court would not embark upon considering the said contentions for the simple reason said issue admittedly is pending before 4th respondent in Appeal No.202/08-09. In the event of petitioner succeeding in the said appeal, they would be
- 13 -
at liberty to question the order impugned in this Writ Petition thereafter and not earlier to that as it would be premature.
9. It is also necessary to observe at this juncture that on the eviction notices issued by Tahsildar, petitioners had approached 4th respondent in PA No. 113/86-87 and the said appeal had been allowed with a direction to 5th respondent - Tahsildar to issue individual notices, hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the matter as such, it would be needless to state that 5th respondent shall comply with the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner in the order at Annexure-A before evicting the petitioners from the lands said to be in their occupation and there shall be no infraction of this direction whatsoever.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
-14-
I ORDER (1) WrIt Petitions are dismissed. (2) PetitIoners would be at liberty to question or challenge the order dated 22.3.2011 In view of the observations made hereinabove, In the event of they succeed In the Appeal No.202/08- 09 pendIng before 4th respondent.
(3) No order as to costs.
Sd1 JUDGE PL 4