Karnataka High Court
Sri M Nagaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
W.P.No.63239/2016
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 63239 OF 2016 (KLR-LG-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O MUNISWAMAPPA,
R/AT HOUSE NO.99, S.R.V .COMPOUND,
B.H.ROAD, TIPTUR,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201
2. SRI.M.MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O RAJASHEKARAPPA,
R/AT MADANUR AT POST,
KOSBA HOBLI, TIPTUR,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
3. SRI.NAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O RAMESH,
R/AT TIMMLAPURA,
GUDIGONDAHALLI POST,
HONNRAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201
4. SRI.SHASHI KIRAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O SUBRAMANYA,
R/AT BEHIND LAKSHMI TALKIES,
W.P.No.63239/2016
-2-
GANDHINAGAR, TIPTUR,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201.
5. SRI.GUBBI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O HARIYAPPA,
R/AT BASWESHRARA NAGAR,
2ND CROSS, TIPTUR,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
6. SRI.A.MAHALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O ALLEGOWDA,
GORAGONDANA HALLI MAIN ROAD,
TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201
7. SRI. AKBAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O CHINAPPA,
R/AT MAVINTOPU,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
8. SMT. J.V.NAGARATHNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
D/O VIJIYANNA,
R/AT KOTTE, 3RD CROSS,
TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
9. SMT. SHAHINA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O AJIM SABH,
R/AT MAVINTOPU, S.S.GARDEN,
TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AMBAJI RAO NAJRE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, K.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
W.P.No.63239/2016
-3-
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
TUMAKURU-572 101
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
TIPTUR SUB DIVISION,
TIPTUR-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION,
TIPTUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201.
4. THE THASILDAR
TIPTUR TALUK, TIPTUR-572 201
5. THE COMMISSIONER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
SINGRI NANJAPPA CIRCLE,
B.H.ROAD, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.
6. THE KARNATAKA TANK CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
(DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION).
7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION,
MINOR IRRIGATION,
TUMKUR-572 103,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, VIDYANAGAR,
BEHIND R.T.O OFFICE,
TUMAKURU-572 103.
8. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION,
MINOR IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION,
APMC YARD, RAITHA BHAVANA BUILDING,
TIPTUR-572 201.
W.P.No.63239/2016
-4-
9. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
PARISARA BHAVANA,
49, CHURCH STREET,
BENGALURU-560 001.
BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
10. THE SECRETARY
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,
SY.NO.1, APMC, YARD, TIPTUR LAKE,
TIPTUR-572 201.
11. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.H. PRASHANTH AGA FOR R1 TO 4, 7 & 8,
SRI. H.T. BASAVARAJU FOR R9,
SRI.P.D. SURANA FOR R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE GRANT ORDER PASSED IN BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2
DATED 18.4.2005 VIDE ANNEX-A, AS PER THE KARNATAKA
TANK CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT,
2014, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 9 TO TAKE
ACTION AS PER ANNEX-D DATED 16.2.2008 ISSUED BY R-7,
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.No.63239/2016
-5-
ORDER
In this writ petition filed in PIL jurisdiction, the petitioners have inter alia sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.04.2005 at Annexure - A whereby, the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner has made grant of a portion of petition land to several authorities/entities. Petitioners have also sought for a direction to restore Tiptur lake to its original position.
When the matter was taken up for Admission today, none appeared for the petitioners though the same was called out twice over. Having heard learned counsel for the respondents, we find no reason to entertain this petition.
It is the case of the petitioners that the land in Sy.No.1 of Tiptur village and taluka, Tumakuru district, as per the Government records is a public tank/reservoir ad measuring 111 Acres 38 Guntas, in all; the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 18.04.2005, has depleted the extent by making unlawful allotment of 13 Acres 13 Guntas in all as under:
W.P.No.63239/2016-6-
Sl.No. Name of the Allottee Extent
1 Divisional Controller, Karnataka 6.00 acres
State Road Transport,
Bangalore, for construction of
Housing Qtrs at Tiptur
2 Agriculture Produce market 2-00 acres
Committee for construction of
market yard for farmers
3 For Tiptur Town Municipal 3-00 acres
private Bus Stand
4 For construction office to Minor 1-00 acre
Irrigation Department
Total 12-00 A-G
Admittedly, these grants were made on 18.04.2005 and that the grantees have paid huge sums of money. All the grantees are statutory authorities and the grant is apparently for public purpose. Out of nearly 112 Acres, only a portion of 12 Acres is granted and the remaining 100 Acres is retained intact. Therefore, it cannot be said that these grants are in violation of law especially when the granting authority has exercised statutory power under the provisions of Rule 20 (c) of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Setting aside such a grant would adversely affect the public interest, more so when the challenge is laid after more than 11 years, with no explanation for the culpable delay brooked in approaching the court.
W.P.No.63239/2016-7-
The learned counsel for the State Government and also the learned counsel for the respondent No.11 KSRTC submit that a similar PIL was filed in W.P.No.15019/2016 challenging the very same grant order dated 18.04.2005 whereby, the bits of land have been granted to the authorities mentioned in the Table above and that the same came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.08.2016. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the same read as under:
"By filing this writ petition, a decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru district, dated April 18, 2005, is impugned.
2. There is no explanation as to why there has been an inordinate delay of twelve years in challenging such order.
3. Moreover, we are informed by Mr.H. Venkatesh Dodderi, learned additional government advocate appearing for the State, that, already, constructions are complete. It is not possible to change the status quo".
The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s All India Manufactures Association reported in AIR 2006 (4) SCC 683 has held that, ordinarily, the judgments rendered by the courts in PIL jurisdiction are the judgments in rem and the W.P.No.63239/2016 -8- findings recorded in them operate as res judicata. At paragraphs 34 and 35, the Apex Court held as under:
"34. Explanation VI came up for consideration before this Court in Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal" (hereinafter "Forward Construction Co."). This Court held that in view of Explanation VI, it could not be disputed that Section 11 applies to public interest litigation, as long sa it is shown that the previous litigation was in public interest and not by way of private grievance. Further, the previous litigation has to be a bona fide litigation in respect of a right which is common and is agitated in common with others.
35. As a matter of fact, in a public interest litigation, the petitioner is not agitating his individual rights but represents the public at large. As long as the litigation is bona fide, a judgment in a previous public interest litigation would be a judgment in rem. It binds the public at large and bars any member of the public from coming forward before the court and raising any connected issue or an issue, which had been raised should have been raised on an earlier occasion by way of a public interest litigation............."
The petitioners averments that the Tiptur lake area is also encroached by the unscrupulous persons do not merit consideration in PIL jurisdiction inasmuch as these encroachers are not impleaded as respondents and further, the issues relating to encroachment invariably involve W.P.No.63239/2016 -9- disputed questions of facts. This court finds no reason to undertake such an adjudication in this petition.
In the above circumstances, we decline to exercise PIL jurisdiction in the matter and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law in case of any legal and subsisting grievance.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/