Karnataka High Court
Sankavva W/O.Adiveppa Mutagond, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 8 January, 2013
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B. Adi
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI
WRIT PETITION Nos.69316-69338/2010 (GM-FF)
BETWEEN:
1. SANKAVVA W/O.ADIVEPPA MUTAGOND,
AGE: 80 YEARS, R/O.SAVADATTI,
TQ:SAVADATTI, DIST:BELGAUM
2. BASALINGAVVA, W/O.BASAPPA MURAGOD,
AGE: 75 YEARS, R/O.KAMOSHRI KRUPA,
4 :2 CROSS, NEW GOODS SHED ROAD, BELGAUM.
R/O RAMAKRISHNA APPOINTMENT 1ST FLOOR,
SADASHIVANAGAR, BELGAUM
3. SHANTABAI, W/O.KAIBURAO SAMBREKAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O.ALERANAGALLI, SHAHAPUR
TQ & DIST: BELGAUM
4. BALAVVA, W/O.SOMAPPA LINGADAHALLI,
AGE: 73 YEARS, R/O.MOOGABASAV,
TQ:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELGAUM
5. BISABI, W/O.MOULASAB IMAM, NAIKAR,
AGE 72 YEARS, R/O.SAVADATTI,
TQ:SAVADATTI, DIST:BELGAUM
6. GANGAVVA W/O.SHANKRAPPA KUMBAR,
AGE 70 YEARS, R/O.GODACHI,
TQ:RAMDURG, DIST:BELGAUM
7. NINGAVVA, W/O.FAKIRAPPA KUMBAR
AGE 75 YEARS, R.O.AKKEI TANGERHAL
TQ:GOKAK, DIST:BELGAUM
:2:
8. BANDAVVA, W/O.AYYAPPA KALASANNAVAR,
AGE 80 YEARS, R/O.MUNAVALLI, TQ:SAVADATTI
DIST:BELGAUM
9. NEELAVVA, W/O.BASAVANNEPPA TULAJANNAVAR,
AGE 73 YEARS, R/O.MUNAVALLI, TQ:SAVADATTI
DIST:BELGAUM
10. GIREVVA, W/O.MALLESHAPPA SIDDAPUR
AGE 78 YEARS, R/O.AKKI ONI SAVADATT
DIST:BELGAUM
11. SATTEVVA, W/O.LAKKAPPA SANADI,
AGE 71 YEARS, R/O.PARAKANATTI, TQ:HUKKERI
DIST:BELGAUM
12. GANGAVVA, W/O.SANNA BHEEMANAGOUDA,
DODDAGOUDA PATIL, AGE:80 YEARS,
R/O.HIREBAGEWADI, TQ & DIST:BELGAUM
13. GANGAVVA, W/O.YALLAPPA POOJER,
AGE: 75 YEARS, R/O.HONAGA
TQ & DIST:BELGAUM
14. KAMALADEVI, W/O.DEVENDRAPPA POTADAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, R/O.DATTATREYA GALLI
M VADAGANVA TQ & DIST:BELGAUM
15. SHANTABAI W/O.IRAPPA PAREET
AGE: 75 YEARS, R/O.RAYABHAG, TQ:RAYABHAG
DIST.BELGAUM
16. MAHIMUNNA W/O.DASTAGEER VOMIN,
AGE: 78 YEARS, R/O.MOMINGALLI, TQ:RAYABHAG
DIST:BELGAUM
17. DAYATABI W/O.BABASAB KUDARI,
AGE: 76 YEARS, R/O.TALLUR, TQ:SAVADATTI
DIST:BELGAUM
:3:
18. PARVATEVVA W/O.VEERABASAPPA KUMAR
AGE: 72 YEARS, R/O.TALLUR, TQ:SAVADATTI
DIST:BELGAUM
19. NAGAVVA W/O.GIRAPPA, MANNIKERI
AGE: 72 YEARS, R/O.TALLUR, TQ:SAVADATTI
DIST:BELGAUM
20. SUSHEELABAI, W/O.MALLANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 80 YEARS, R/O.LINGADALLI,
TQ: BAILAHONGAL, DIST : BELGAUM
21. BAGAVVA, W/O.RAMACHANDRA KATTI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, R/O.KEROOR, TQ:CHIKKODI
DIST:BELGAUM
22. SOMAVVA W/O.BASAPPA GADDI,
AGE:80 YEARS, R/O.SHIVAPUR,
TQ:SAVADATTI DIST:BELGAUM
23. IMAMBI, W/O.BARA IMAMSAB DAFEDAR,
AGE: 80 YEARS, R/O.SAVADATTI,
DIST:BELGAUM
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H M DHARIGOND, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF DPAR (POLITICAL PENSION)
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM DIST
BELGAUM.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT K VIDYAVATI, AGA)
:4:
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT NAMELY UNDER SECRETARY
DATED:02/01/2003, 08/01/2001, 23/06/2000, 27/01/2000,
18/07/2000, 01/07/2000, 13/07/2000, 06/07/2000,
20/07/2000, 17/07/2000, 24/06/2000, 22/07/2000,
13/07/2000, 23/05/2000, 20/06/2000, 21/07/2000,
26/04/2000, 26/04/2000, 25/02/2002, 16/11/2002,
11/09/2000, 27/08/1999 AND 11/01/2000 VIDE
ANNEXURES-A TO A22 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING-B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In these writ petitions, petitioners are claiming to be the widows/unmarried daughters of the freedom fighters (in some cases, it is by the freedom fighters and in some cases by the beneficiaries). The petitioners had claimed for freedom fighter's pension in view of the benefit extended by the State of Karnataka as well as Union of India.
2. In case of widow, it is claimed that, her husband was involved in the freedom movement in 1942. Though the freedom fighters pension was granted, however, during the lifetime of the freedom fighter, a notice came to be issued calling upon the freedom fighter, as to why the pension granted :5: to him should not be cancelled, since freedom fighter in whose favour the pension granted died and notice was contested by his widow. In respect of some of the freedom fighters in whose favour the pension was granted were also issued with the similar notices. It is not disputed that earlier the respondent authorities, based on the application and the material produced by the applicants had granted the pension. However, the said pension has been cancelled on the ground that, the applicants or the widows whoever is concern, have not produced the documents like warrant issued, order of Magistrate, and other relevant documents.
3. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that, at the time of filing of the application for grant of freedom fighters pension, applicant had submitted the documents in proof his involvement in the freedom movement, such as the affidavit of the persons who were imprisoned along with the freedom fighters and other documents. However, in the impugned order, what is observed is that the petitioners have not produced the authenticated documents, such as Magistrate's order, arrest warrant etc., as per the Karnataka State Freedom :6: Fighters Welfare Rule, 1969 (in short referred to as 'the rules'). The documents referred to relate to 1942 freedom movement and the applicants being old aged and being widows or aged persons, asking them to produce the warrant copy or the Magistrate's order at this stage would result in futile exercise. Further, it appears from the impugned order that the respondent authority has also made local verification. But the same appears to have been made without notice to the applicants or the beneficiaries.
4. This Court in identical circumstances in W.P.No.60054/2011 dated 21.10.2011 has issued direction to the authorities to reconsider the matter. Further, in case of widows of the freedom fighters, this Court in a judgment reported in ILR 2040 Karnataka page 1090 has held, it is too late in the day to ask a widow of the freedom fighter to produce the documents and the said order is also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. The impugned order passed is one passed without considering the material produced along with the original application filed for grant of pension and also without :7: extending any opportunity. The authority is required to consider the documents already produced to find out the correctness of the claim for the pension.
6. Hence, without adverting to the merits and demerits of the grantees, it would be just and proper to direct the authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioners by considering the judgment of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1993 SC 2127 in the case of Mukundalal Bhandari Vs. Union of India, and also considering the documents, if any, produced by the petitioners, and after holding enquiry, the authority may dispose of the claims in accordance with law. Now doubt fraud vitiates everything, however, in the process, the claim of genuine should not be brushed aside.
7. Hence, in my opinion, the matter requires re- consideration at the hands of the authorities. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsidering the same in accordance with law as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties be issued with the notice and opportunity be afforded. :8: However, till the claims are finally decided, the applicants/widows and other beneficiaries are not entitled for pension.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dated 02.01.2003, 08.01.2001, 23.06.2000, 27.01.2000, 18.07.2000, 01.07.2000, 13.07.2000, 06.07.2000, 20.07.2000, 17.07.2000, 24.06.2000, 22.07.2000, 13.07.2000, 23.05.2000, 20.06.2000, 21.07.2000, 24.06.2000, 25.02.2002, 16.11.2002, 11.09.2000, 27.08.1999 and 11.01.2000 are quashed and the authorities are directed to hold enquiry as observed above.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/ct-naa