Karnataka High Court
Manjunath T P vs State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.9393/2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH.T.P.,
S/O.T.S.PARAMESHWARA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O. IYMANGALA VILLAGE
AND POST, VIRAJPET TALUK,
COORG DISTRICT-571 218.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUMANTH.L.BHARADWAJ, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE DIVISION,
MYSORE-23.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT,
CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.
2
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CHIKMAGALUR TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.
5. THE THASILDHAR,
MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAGADISH MUNDARGI, G.A.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 21/29.7.2011 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
GRANT LAND IN QUESTION TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 21/29.07.2011 as at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant the land in question to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a soldier serving in the Indian army since 02.07.2001. In that view, the 3 petitioner claiming that he is entitled for grant of land had made an application seeking grant of 10 acres land in Sy.No.203, Bankal Hobli, Hosagodu Village, Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur District and Sy.No.9, Guthi Hobli. The Regional Commissioner had initially taken note of the application made by the petitioner had recommended the case of the petitioner for grant. The respondent No.2- Regional Commissioner had accordingly putforth all the papers before the respondent No.1 seeking approval for grant. By the impugned communication at Annexure-A, the respondent No.1 has written to the respondent No.2 indicating that the land which had been identified for the purpose of grant to the petitioner is not available inasmuch as the said survey number is classified as 'Gomal land'. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner to assail such conclusion on the part of the respondent 4 No.1 would refer to the RTCs which are produced at Annexures-P and P1 and also the additional documents which have been produced along with a memo. It is contended that from out of the total extent in the said survey number, only a portion is retained as a 'Gomal land' keeping in view the cattles population in the village. It is also pointed out that certain persons had sought for regularization of their unauthorized cultivation which had been granted in the very same survey number. As such the case of the petitioner also be considered is the case. In that view, it is contended that the communication at Annexure-A is not justified.
4. The learned Government advocate would however seek to justify the action of the respondents. It is pointed out that even though at the first instance the Tahsildar had made the recommendation on the ground that there were no objections from any quarter, the ultimate consideration would be as to whether the land is 5 available and therefore when the respondent No.1 has noticed that the land in question is classified as 'Gomal land', the impugned communication at Annexure-A does not call for interference is the contention.
5. In the light of the above, certainly while considering the grant of land, more particularly in view of the petitioner being a soldier seeking grant under the defence quota, the respondents would have to identify the lands which are classified and listed for the purpose of grant. In the instant case, even though the petitioner relies on the RTCs to point out that certain others have been granted land in the very same survey number, keeping in view the document at Annexure-P, it is seen that major partition of the land in Sy.No.203 was also classified as 'Gomal', Hence, it would not be possible for this Court in a writ proceedings to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the exact extent of land which is available in Sy.No.203 as claimed by the petitioner. This aspect of 6 the matter would require factual determination at the hands of the respondents. Hence, though at this juncture I see no reason to quash the communication at Annexure-A, keeping in view the fact that the respondent No.1 has only returned the proposal putforth by the respondent No.2 for grant, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same only as a communication from the respondent No.1 and thereafter re-examine the matter taking note of the actual extent of land available in Sy.No.203 and the extent which has been reserved as 'Gomal' at present.
6. In the said process, the respondent No.2 shall also verify with the material particulars with regard to the extent of land available in the said survey number and thereafter send back the proposal to the respondent No.1, if land is available in the said survey number for the purpose of grant. If while undertaking the said exercise, on factual determination respondent No.2 finds 7 that there is no land available in the said survey number, he shall also verify the revenue records to find out if any lands have been reserved in other survey number which are available for grant in the nature as sought by the petitioner and such land shall be included in the proposal that is to be sent by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. On such recommendation being made by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 shall consider the same in accordance with law.
7. Considering the fact that the application of the petitioner has been pending for quite some time, the petitioner shall now submit a representation along with a copy of this order and the supporting documents with the respondent No.2 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent No.2 shall undertake the exercise as indicated above as expeditiously as possible and in any event, the revised proposal shall be dispatched from the respondent No.2 to 8 the respondent No.1 within a period of five months. On receipt of the proposal from the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 shall consider the same in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter.
8. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST*