IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.16003/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN A. RAMESH, S/O LATE ABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.S.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO , REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PREVENTION OF UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION CELL, K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K R PURAM, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.R.RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.2.2012, ISSUED BY THE R4, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner herein is impugning the endorsement dated 17.2.2012 in LND.CR.1015/2011-12. In addition to that he is also seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 14/15.10.2010.
2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
Petitioner herein is son of Abbaiahppa, who was the grantee of a house site in a proceedings in LND.599/1962- 63, which is at Annexure-B. Though a house site is granted in favour of petitioner’s father on 5.10.1962 at Bidarahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli of Hosakote Taluk, petitioner’s father had not taken up any construction on said site during his lifetime. It is stated that after the death of petitioner’s father, said site was mutated in the name of petitioner’s mother and thereafter, petitioner’s mother has gifted the said property to the petitioner. Subsequently, when petitioner has taken up construction on said site, it is stated that a notice was issued to him on 5.10.2010, Annexure-K to the writ petition, calling upon him to stop the construction which he had taken, on the premise that he is constructing a building in a portion of land bearing Sy.No.96 measuring to an extent of 7 guntas, which is Government Kunte (pond). In that behalf, it is seen that an inquiry is also conducted by the Tahsildar, who has given his report vide letter dated 5.9.2011.
3. When all the documents are looked in to, it is seen that the grant of site in favour of petitioner’s father is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the place where petitioner is trying to construct a building. As per the Tahsildar’s report, which is submitted after conducting spot inspection, the petitioner is in possession of Gram Tana area only to an extent of ¼ gunta and remaining 1½ guntas in possession of petitioner is Government pond in Sy.No.96, which totally measures 7 guntas. Therefore, this extent of land on which petitioner wanted to raise construction is opposed by the 4th respondent by issuing endorsement dated 17.2.2012, which is sought to be challenged in this proceedings.
4. Heard Sri.M.S.Varadarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.D.R.Rajashekarappa, Panel Advocate of Karnataka Public Land Corporation, who is authorized to appear on behalf of the respondents in this petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material on record, this Court is unable to find any justifiable reason to allow the petitioner to put up construction in the place where he is making preparations to put up house based on the grant made in favour of his father in the year 1962. As rightly observed by the 4th respondent in his report, the petitioner is said to be in possession of 1½ guntas of Government Pond on which he cannot be permitted to put up construction. In fact, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that he has no objection if the petitioner confines the place of construction to the Gram Tana area without encroaching in to any portion of land bearing Sy.No.96 of Bidarahalli village, which appears to be just and proper.
6. Therefore, placing on record the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to confine himself for construction of house in the Gram Tana area, which is granted in favour of his father and subsequently gifted to him by his mother.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-