Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: BMIC Project in Chikkamunivenkatappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2017Matching Fragments
5. Aggrieved by this action of the Tahsildar, petitioner approached this Court by filing WP No.3288/2013. This Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 15.7.2014 (Annexure-K). In paras-9 and 10 of the said order, this Court recorded necessary findings and issued a direction as found therein. The same reads thus:
"9. therefore, this matter has been considered only in the context of the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and compliance of the directions in that order. The Tahsildar who was directed to rectify the revenue entries insofar as the extent of land in Sy.No.51 measuring 8 acres 5 guntas has given the impugned endorsement stating that the Sy.No.51 does not extend to 8 acres 5 guntas and that it is only 5 acres 5 guntas. This is contrary to the finding and direction of the Special Deputy Commissioner in order dated 30.07.2010 (Annexure-H). The other aspect of the matter is that the Tahsildar has also stated that Sy.No.51 has been acquired and has been leased out for BMIC Project. This fact is also belied by Annexure-N, which is a copy of the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka dated 07.10.1999, wherein in the annexures, it is stated that it is Sy.No.55 of Kembattanahalli village, which has been leased to the BMIC Project and not Sy.No.51. Therefore on both counts, the impugned endorsement of the Tahsildar is incorrect. Hence, the said endorsement, as at Annexure-M is quashed.
10. The consequential directions issued to the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar is to comply with the directions issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.213/2005-06 dated 30.07.2010 so long as the directions of Deputy Commissioner are in operation. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
6. Thus it emerges that this Court had clearly pointed out that the Tahsildar was in error in holding that 3 acres of land was part of Sy.No.55 and the same was granted by the government in favour of BMIC Project inasmuch as, as per the proceedings of the government, 3 acres of land was not part of Sy.No.51 and not granted to BMIC Project and hence the impugned endorsement of the Tahsidlar was incorrect.
11. Despite the said order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, the Tahsildar proceeded to issue an endorsement dated 30.7.2012 stating that 3 acres of land was allotted by the government to BMIC Project and therefore the extent had to be reduced to 5 acres 5 guntas. This Court has taken exception to the endorsement of the Tahsildar and the same has been set aside on merit. Therefore, the matter indeed had reached finality at that stage.
13
12. However, at this stage, ingenious method is adopted by the Tahsildar to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner and in the guise of liberty given to move the Deputy Commissioner seeking review of the order dated 30.7.2010 passed earlier by the Deputy Commissioner the said order has been sought to be reviewed after six years by passing the impugned order dated 30.6.2016 on wholly untenable grounds.