Karnataka High Court
Smt Kempamma.R vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.10801-815/2017 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SMT.KEMPAMMA.R
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O. SAMPATHKUMAR,
R/AT NO. 80, SHIVANAPURA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 562123
2. SMT. M.SHIVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O SIDDARAJU,
R/AT NO. 04, THIMMABOVIPALYA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 562123
3. SMT. LATHA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O VENKATESH,
R/AT NO. 123, SHIVANAPURA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 562123
4. SMT. MANJULA T.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
W/O JAYARAMAIAH
R/AT THIMMABOVIPALYA,
SHIVANAPURA, BANGLORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 562 162.
5. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O LATE SIDDARASAIAH
R/AT NO.108, THIMMABOVIPALYA
2
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE.
6. SMT. SUKANYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
W/O GOVINDARAJU
R/AT NO.108, THIMMABOVIPALYA
BANGLAORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE 562 162.
7. SMT. BHAGYAMMA T.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
W/O MUNIKRISHNA
R/AT THIMMABOVIPALYA
BANGALORE NORTH TLAUK
BANGALORE 562 123.
8. SMT. PUSHPALATHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
W/O H.D. KRISHNA
R/AT THIMMABOVIPALYA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE 562 162.
9. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O SIDDAPPA
R/AT NO.204, SHIANAPURA
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE CITY.
10. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
W/O RAMAMURTHY
NO.2, THIMMABOVIPALYA,
SHIVANAPURA
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE 562 123.
11. SMT. SUKANYA
AGED ABOUT 36 YELARS
W/O LATE RAJASHEKAR
R/AT SHIVANAPURA POST
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE 562 123.
3
12. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
W/O RUDRAMURHTY
R/AT NEAR LAKSHMINARAYANA TEMPLE
SHIANAPURA
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 562 123.
13. SMT. MANGALA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
W/O GANGARAJU
R/AT NO.32, SHIVANAPURA,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE 562 123.
14. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI.S.H.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O MUNEGOWDA
R/AT NO.53, SHIVANAPURA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 562 123.
15. SMT. PUTTAMARAKKA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
D/O LATE NANJAPLPA
R/AT SHIVANAPURA,
BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri NATARAJ R., ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATRAJ &
RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001
4
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
4. THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
BANGALORE URBAN ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
5. THE TALUK PANCHAYATH,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
YALAHANKA,
REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BANGALROE 560001.
7. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BANGALROE 560001.
8. THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
SHIVANAPURA,
BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1-R3, R6 & R7;
Sri T.N.VISHWANATH, ADV. FOR R8;
NOTICE TO R4 & R5 -DISPENSED WITH)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R3 DT.26.11.2016 VIDE
ANNEX-E AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.5 NOT TO FORM
OR DISTRIBUTE ANY SITES TO ANY PERSONS IN THE LAND
BEARING SY.NO.116 OF SHIVANAPURA, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
1. Petitioners are the villagers of Shivanapura and Thimmabovipalya villages in Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. They have approached this Court challenging the order passed by 3rd respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore on 26.11.2016 vide Annexure-E exercising his power under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') thereby de-reserving an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.116 earmarked as government gomal land for the purpose of allotment in favour of siteless persons of the village under "Ashraya Vajpayee Housing Scheme".
2. Main grievance made by petitioners is that land in question totally measuring 3 acres is the only land available for pasturage for the villagers to graze their cattle. As per the report of the Veterinary Medical Officer of Makali Village, Bangalore North Taluk, total number of cattle heads available was 321, 59 sheep and 168 goats, totally 548. Copy of the report is made available to the Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate. That being so, it is urged, without applying his mind to the requirement of the land in question for pasturage, the 6 Deputy Commissioner has de-reserved the land for allotment in favour of siteless persons under "Ashraya Vajpayee Housing Scheme".
3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that as held by this Court in the case of GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UGARGOL VILLAGE, PARASADGAD TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA - (2000)1 Kar.L.J 120 the Deputy Commissioner is required to consider all relevant circumstances before reducing the extent of gomal land below the prescribed minimum. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that as the impugned order reduces the extent of land reserved as gomal below the prescribed minimum and as there is no material to show that the Deputy Commissioner had applied his mind to the requirement of the land for pasturage, impugned order cannot be sustained.
4. Learned counsel appearing for impleading applicant who intends to come on record to support the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner urges that their interest would be adversely affected if writ petition is allowed. He, further submits that it was a policy decision that has been taken by the State Government to reduce the land earmarked for pasturage 7 so as to make allotment in favour of siteless persons and this Court would not interfere in such policy matters. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of MAHADEV AND OTHERS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS - 2012(2) KCCR 1133.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate who was directed to secure the records has made available the records. She submits that there was no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner to issue any public notice or hear any objections of the villagers before passing the impugned order. She supports the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner contending that the same has been done in public interest to provide sites in favour of siteless persons.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for all parties, I find that as held by this Court in the case of GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UGARGOL VILLAGE, referred to above, the Deputy Commissioner is required to take into consideration all relevant circumstances before he could pass the order reducing the extent of gomal land. Whether there is any justification to reduce the land reserved for pasturage depends on the need of the villagers for 8 providing sites viz-a-viz the need of the residents of the village who require the land for pasturage. All that the Deputy Commissioner is required to do is to apply his mind to find out whether public interest demanded such a decision to reduce the land reserved for pasturage and make it available for allotment of sites to siteless persons. As can be seen from the impugned order, there is no application of mind to this vital aspect of the matter by the Deputy Commissioner.
7. Judgment in the case of MAHADEV AND OTHERS referred above arises under a different set of circumstances where the land had to be earmarked for the purpose of ITBP i.e., Indo Tibetan Border Police Force. This Court has found that the decision taken for allotment of the said land by reducing the gomal land in the facts of the said case was keeping in mind the national interest and that it was not permissible to go into the validity of the order passed by the competent authorities who had acted in utmost public interest. In the instant case, such national interest is not involved in de-reserving the land from pasturage and earmarking it for forming residential sites to allot the same in favour of siteless persons. Hence, the judgment on 9 which learned counsel for the impleading applicant has placed reliance will not come to his help.
8. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The matter requires to be remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law for passing an order afresh. Petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 03.08.2017 and file their objections, if any, whereupon the Deputy commissioner shall consider the said objections and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months thereafter.
It is open for the impleading applicant to appear before the Deputy Commissioner and file their statement producing necessary documents, whereupon the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the same along with the objections filed by petitioners in accordance with law. I.A.3/2017 filed for impleading is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP