Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 10 November, 2020
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12612/2020 (KLR/LG)
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA
S/O MADHAVA NAIAKA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/O JIGALAGODU
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
2. K. T. ESHWARAPPA GOWDA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/O C. K. ROAD, MALLUR POST
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
3. JAYAPPA GOWDA
S/O GIDDAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
R/O GABADI
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
4. T. R. SUDHA
W/O LATE RAMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O C. K. ROAD
2
MALURU POST
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
THIRTHAHALLI
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTIRCT - 577 432.
4. GOPALA
S/O AITHA POOJARY
AGED BY MAJOR
R/O VALAGERE
MALURU POST
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
- 577 432. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.N. MAHADESHWARAN., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2017 IN CASE NO. LR.A 02/2015-
16 PASSED BY THE R-2 WITH RESPECT TO OBSERVATION
3
MADE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN THE OPERATIVE
PROTION OF THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND THE
ORDER DATED 24.09.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 MADE IN
CASE NO. R.MISC NO. 13/2017-18 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for first to third respondents are heard and the petition is disposed of at the Preliminary Hearing stage.
2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition impugning certain observations by the second respondent in the order dated 21.2.2017 in R.A.02/15-16 and the order dated 24.9.2018 by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District in Revision Petition No.R.Mis.No.13/2017-18 as well as the notice dated 21.9.2020 issued pursuant thereto. 4
3. The petitioners' case is that the petitioners have been granted residential plots in recognition of their services (the fourth petitioner's husband was in service) as teachers in a Board School in remote area. On the fourth respondent's request, a survey sketch is prepared for Survey No.40 of Nandagadde village, Thirthahalli Taluk by the Surveyor including the plots allotted to the petitioners (the fourth petitioner's husband). On the petitioners' application the sketch prepared by the surveyor is quashed by the Tahsildar on 3.3.2015. This order is challenged by the fourth respondent in proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The second respondent has disposed of this appeal setting aside the Tahsildar's order dated 3.3.2015 observing that the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat and the Tahsildar, Thirthalli could examine the violation of the terms of grants and take appropriate action subject to the decision in O.S.No.5/2015. In the revision petition filed by the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner has directed the Tahsildar to initiate 5 proceedings against the petitioners under Section 25(2) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, and also examine the validity of the grant in favour of the fourth respondent under the provisions of Section 43G of the Mysore Land Revenue Code.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tahsildar has issued the impugned notice dated 21.9.2020 pursuant to this direction and the petitioners' reasonable apprehension is that the Tahsildar, because directions are issued by the Deputy Commissioner, could arbitrarily decide on the petitioners' cause overlooking the fact that the validity of the grants is directed to be reexamined after four decades.
5. If the petitioners' grievance is confined to an apprehension that the validity of the grants in favour of petitioners would be examined arbitrarily under Section 25(2) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 without considering 6 the merits of the cause that the petitioners could show, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the Tahsildar, Thirthalli to decide on the cause shown by the petitioners strictly in accordance with law with reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show-cause against initiation of proceedings, including the ground that it is a belated initiation after a lapse of more than four decades from the date of the grants. It is needless to observe that the Tahsildar will have to decide on the merits of the cause shown by the petitioners uninfluenced by any observations made in the earlier proceedings.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE nv