Karnataka High Court
Sri H Govindaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2022
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 20722 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI R MARE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE M RAMAIAH
R/AT MEENAKUNTE HOSUR
JALA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TQ
BENGALURU RURAL DIST ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NARASIMHA PRASAD S D, ADVOCATE;
SRI.M.N.UMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU 560106 ....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
TO CONDUCT DURST PHODI OF THE LAND BEARING SY
NO.39(39/p-10) MEASURING TO AN 1 ACRE 30 GUNTAS
SITUATED AT MEENKUNTE VILLAGE JALA -2 HOBLI,
YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU IN TERMS OF THE
REPRESENTATIONS VIDE ANNEXURE-H, J, AND L
2
DTD.24.6.2009, 06.12.2012, 07.08.2019 RESPECTIVELY
AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk in not conducting the durasth-phodi in respect of Sy.No.39 (39/P-10) measuring 1 acre 30 guntas situated at Meenkunte Village, Jala-2 Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru.
2. It is not disputed that by orders dated 08.09.1994 and 22.07.1998, the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised occupation passed orders regularizing parcels of land in Sy.No.39 in favour of 65 persons, including the petitioner herein whose name is found at Sl.No.10 in Annexure 'A' which is the office order of the Tahsildar, directing durasthi of the respective parcels of land regularized in favour of the persons named therein. 3
3. However, the petitioner was informed by the respondent-Tahsildar that since the lands were within the prohibited distance as contemplated under Section 94-A (4) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Table therein, since the lands were within the distance of 18 kms. from the boundary of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the Tahsildar recommended to the Assistant Commissioner to take action by invoking the powers under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Saying so, an endorsement has been issued to the petitioner stating that the phodi work cannot be carried out, since action is sought to be initiated to cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioner's father.
4. During the course of these proceedings, the respondent-Tahsildar was directed to explain why the application made by the petitioner seeking durasth-phodi was not carried out. In compliance of the same, the learned AGA has filed a memo on 21.01.2022 along with the communication made by the respondent-Tahsildar to the Assistant Commissioner, for cancellation of the grants. 4 However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this information is not made available to the petitioner.
5. This Court posed certain questions to the Tahsildar who is present before the Court, in view of the directions issued by this Court, as to whether action was initiated against all the 65 persons to whom grants were made in the two orders mentioned hereinabove or whether action was initiated only against the petitioner and if so, why he has been singled out.
6. Learned AGA submits that the action sought to be taken by the Tahsildar is consequent to a Circular dated 18.09.2014 issued by the Revenue Department of the State Government directing the respective Tahsildars to find out as to whether the grant orders were passed by the Committees in contravention to the requirement in Section 94-A(4) of the Act. If that is so, if action was earnestly taken consequent to the Circular dated 18.09.2014, then by this time, action should have been taken against all the 65 grantees. Admittedly, no such material is placed before this Court to show that action has been initiated against all 5 the grantees. Further, it is also possible that under the jurisdiction of the respondent-Tahsildar, other than these 65 grants made in Sy.No.39 there may be many other cases where action should have been taken in terms of the Circular dated 18.09.2014. When no material is placed before this Court showing the prompt action taken consequent to the Circular dated 18.09.2014, this Court shall not allow the respondent-Tahsildar to pick and choose to take action only in respect of one or two cases. It is also noticeable that Assistant Commissioner has not initiated any action till date. If at all the Assistant Commissioner would want to take action, he should necessarily take action in respect of all the 65 grants and not one or two out of them.
7. Therefore, there is substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, when he says that the respondent-authorities cannot be allowed to pick and choose to take action against one or two of them. Such random action smacks of arbitrariness and militates against the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of 6 the Constitution of India. Moreover, it has been submitted on facts that the lands in question were never within the restricted distance, since in the year 1994-98 the jurisdiction of the Corporation which was then known as Bangalore Mahanagara Palike was only till Hebbal and whereas subsequently, it has grown with the addition of many Villages and the jurisdiction is now expanded much beyond what was the boundaries during the year 1994-98. All these aspects will have to be taken into consideration by the Assistant Commissioner before proceeding to initiate any action.
8. Nevertheless, the action proposed to be taken shall not preclude this Court from issuing directions to the respondent-Tahsildar to consider the application made by the petitioner for phodi durasth work. However, it has been informed that these days the application for phodi durasth work has to be done online.
9. Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application online seeking phodi-durasth work and the competent 7 authority shall take action as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date when the application would be filed by the petitioner. The competent authority shall also take note of the observations made hereinabove and shall not decline to process the application and complete the durasth phodi work within the stipulated time.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-