Karnataka High Court
Deputy Director Of Horticulture vs The Assistant Commissioner And on 10 April, 2017
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NOs.110 OF 2017 AND
14995 TO 15027 OF 2017
AND 15028 TO 15032 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
2. SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF HORTICULTURE
STATE SECTOR,
TUMAKURU - 572 101. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PATEL D. KARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION,
TUMAKURU -572 101
2. THE TAHSILDAR
KUNIGAL TALUK,
KUNIGAL,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
3. MAHADEVA
S/O. HANUMAIAH
AGE :MAJOR
2
RESIDING AT TOOBINAKERE,
AMRUTHUR HOBLI AND POST
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
4. NARASAMMA
AGE MAJOR,
W/O. HANUMAIAH,
R/AT TOOBINAKERE,
AMRUTHUR HOBLI AND POST
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
5. BASAVARAJ
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. LATE MARIYAPPA,
R/AT MARKONAHALLY AT POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
6. PRAKASH
AGE MAJOR,
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA,
R/AT MARKONAHALLY AT POST,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
7. SRI CHELUVARAJ
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. NARASAIAH
R/AT MARKONAHALLY AT POST
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
8. VENKATALAKSHAMMA,
MAJOR, W/O.SANJEEVAIAH,
9. DODDAMMA, MAJOR,
W/O.THIMMAIAH,
3
10. CHIKKACHELUVA, MAJOR,
S/O.CHELUVA,
11. DODDACHELUVA, MAJOR,
S/O CHELUVA,
12. CHELUVAIAH, MAJOR,
S/O CHELUVAIAH,
13. M.KADEGOWDA, MAJOR,
S/O.MAYANNA,
RESPONDENT NOs.8 TO 13 ARE
RESIDING AT MARKONAHALLY,
YADIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
14. NARAYANA IYENGAR
MAJOR, S/O FATHER
NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER,
AMRUTHUR, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
15. HANUMAIAH
MAJOR, S/O NANJAIAH
R/AT DEVARAYANAPALYA,
AMRUTHUR,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
16. HANUMAIAH,
MAJOR,
S/O.KALAIAH,
17. KARIYAPPA
MAJOR,
S/O.CHIKKAHANUMAIAH,
18. HANUMANTHAIAH
4
MAJOR,
S/O.HANUMAIAH,
19. ERAMMA, URF
JAYALAKSHMAMMA, MAJOR,
W/O.HONNARAJ,
20. GOPALA KRISHNA
MAJOR,
S/O.THIRUMALAIAH,
21. HANUMANTHA
MAJOR,
S/O.KARIGOWDA,
22. GANGAMMA
MAJOR,
D/O.MARIYAPPA URF
SANNAIAH,
23. SANNAPPA, MAJOR,
S/O.SANNABAIAH,
24. HONNAIAH URF KARIGOWDA
MAJOR,
S/O.FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER
25. MARIYA, MAJOR,
S/O.SANNAIAH,
26. CHIKKAHANUMAIAH, URF
SANNAPPA, MAJOR,
S/O. KAPALGOWDA,
RESPONDENT NOs.16 TO 26 ARE
RESIDING AT TOOBINAKERE VILLAGE,
AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
5
(BY MRS.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2
NOTICE TO R3 TO R26 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT
ORDER DATED 10.04.2017)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER
THE REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS AT
ANNEXURES-R TO U AND DIRECT THEM TO RECTIFY THE
ENTRIES MADE IN THE REVENUE RECORDS INCLUDING THE
ENTRIES IN RTC AS PER SURVEY SKETCH WITH SY.NOS.
AND EXTENT VIDE ANNEXURES-B AND C TO THE WRIT
PETITIONS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The plea of the petitioners, who are the Deputy Director of Horticulture and Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture, is that their representations vide Annexures 'R' to 'U' made to respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been considered. That their request to the said Authorities was to rectify the entries made in the revenue records. 6
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that if a reasonable time is granted, the same will be considered.
4. Under these circumstances, it is just and proper that before the entries in the revenue records are rectified, all the contesting respondents namely, respondent Nos.3 to 26 are given notice and their objections are considered, if necessary and thereafter, the entries are to be rectified. Without hearing them, no order could be passed by either of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.3 to 26 is dispensed with.
5. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations vide Annexures 'R' to 'U' based on the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible.
The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.
SD/-
JUDGE sma