Karnataka High Court
Sri. Abraham T. J. vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.57366 OF 2016 (GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN
1. SRI. ABRAHAM T. J.
ANTI-CORRUPTION & SOCIAL ACTIVIST,
S/O. LATE SRI. JOSEPH T.A,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
#2326, "ASHIRWAD",
2ND "A" CROSS, 16TH "B" MAIN,
H.A.L. 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 008.
2. SRI. DASHRAT
S/O. LADAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED,
R/AT #7/2/6/1, ALAND TALUK,
GULBARGA-585 302.
3. SRI. DEVAPPA
S/O. BHIMSHYA PUJARI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER,
R/AT BOOSNUR TANDA,
2
ALAND TALUK,
GULBARGA-585 302.
4. SRI. SIDDARAMAPPA
S/O. RAMLINGAPPA DEVNUR,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER,
R/AT BHIMANAGARA, ALAND TALUK,
GULBARGA-585 302.
5. SRI. SUNIL BURE
S/O. MALLIKARJUN BURE,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED,
R/AT SULTANPUR GALLI MAIN ROAD,
ALAND TALUK,
GULBARGA-585 302.
6. SRI. KISHOR
S/O. VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED,
R/AT NO.1/5/39, CHAKRI KATTA,
NEAR MAIN ROAD,
ALAND TALUK,
GULBARGA-585 302.
7. SRI. HIRA
S/O. MOTI RAM RATHOD,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER,
R/AT MURI SAB TANDA,
ALAND TALUK,
GULBARGA-585 302.
8. SRI. DAYANAND PATIL
S/O. CHANDRASHAKER PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER,
3
PRESIDENT, HYDERABAD-KARNATAKA,
RAITA SANGHA,
R/AT E/8/1450/2, E/8/1440
TO R/8/1579/1, NEHERU GANJ,
FILTERBED,
LAMBADA TANDA,
GULBARGA-585 104.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI GOPALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
3RD GATE, 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
4TH FLOOR, 3RD GATE, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
KALBURGI-MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
STATION ROAD, KALBURGI-585 102
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DISTRICT GOVERNMENT OFFICE,
KALBURGI-MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
STATION ROAD,
KALBURGI-585 102,
4
6. THE TAHSILDAR
ALAND TALUK,
KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585 302.
7. SRI. BHOJARAJ RAMACHANDRA PATIL
@ (B.R.PATIL), MLA-ALAND CONSTITUENCY
GULBARGA DISTRICT,
S/O. RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.172, KHB COLONY,
SHANTHINAGAR,
GULBARGA-585 103.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MADHUSUDAN R NAIK, GOVT. ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR SRI V SREENIDHI, AGA, FOR R1-6;
SRI D N NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS IN FILE BEARING KamE 105 WBR 2014
SUBJECT GULBARGA DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION OF 'MINI
VIDHANA SOUDHA' BUILDING IN ALAND TOWN ISSUED BY R-2,
TO QUASH THE APPROVAL /ORDER PASSED BY THE CHIEF
MINISTRER OF KARNATAKA TO BE CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME
OF THE R-1 DATED 07.06.2016 AT ANNEX-AF TO THIS
PETITION, ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
This is a writ petition in the nature of public interest on the allegation that the land proposed for the construction of mini Vidhana Soudha in Aland town of Kalaburagi District, is not suitable for construction of mini Vidhana Soudha.
2. The principal ground urged in the writ petition is that, no useful purpose would be served if the mini Vidhana Soudha is constructed in the proposed site bearing Survey No.696, as it is at a distance of six kilometres from the town.
3. Mr.Madhusudan R.Naik, learned Advocate General, appears and submits that the choice was between a Government land and the land offered by an individual.
4. The highest authority in the Government considered both the proposals and decided to construct mini Vidhana Soudha at the present place. Whether this place is more suitable to construct mini Vidhana Soudha or 6 not, is not in the domain of the court. It is in the administrative domain. We do not find any merit in the petition.
5. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
6. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*