1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P.No.46377/2013 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN ANANTHA RAJA BHAT S/O GOVINDA BHAT AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. KUTELU HOUSE MANILA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) MESCOM, VITTAL SUB-DIVISION VITTAL, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574219.
2. BALAKRISHNA BHAT S/O NARAYANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. KUTELU HOUSE MANILA VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574219.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI N.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI ARUN K.S. ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT:24-9-2013, PASSED BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) MESCOM, VITTAL SUB-DIVISION, VITTAL ORIGINAL COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANN-A & ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Mr. Ravishankar Shastry G, Adv. for Petitioner.
Mr. H.V. Devaraju, Adv. for Mr. N.K. Gupta, Adv. for R1 Mr. Arun K.S. Adv. for R2 The petitioner-Anantha Raja Bhat S/o Govinda Bhat, is aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure-A dated 24.09.2013 passed by Respondent No.1-Assistant Executive Engineer(Ele), MESCOM, Vittal Sub-Division, by which the said Authority has held that there is no unauthorized pump set in Sy.No.231/3 and therefore, the question of regularizing unauthorized pump set in Sy.No.231/3 does not arise and the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and deposit of Rs.4,425/- deserve to be forfeited. The said Authority has further observed that the unauthorized pump set in the disputed Sy.No.229/1 will be disconnected forthwith. The said Authority has also referred to the Report of the Tahsildar of the said Manila Village that the pump set actually exists in Sy.No.229/1 and not Sy.No.231/3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the Application Form i.e., Annexure-B in Column No.4, which only asked for Survey Number of land to be cultivated, the mention of Sy.No.231/3 has been correctly indicated by the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the regularization of the pump set in Sy.No.229/1 could not be denied on the ground of wrong mentioning of Survey Number in the application.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present petition has no force and deserves to be dismissed.
4. The relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted below for ready reference:
“Thasildar report and sketch shows the existence of pump set in Sy.No.229/1 of Manila Village. But, in your application seeking regularization of unauthorized pump set, you have mentioned Sy.No.231/3 as the land which has to be cultivated or the land which now the pump set is to be installed. In this regard, it is seen that land in Sy.No.231/3 does not contain unauthorized pump set. Hence, question of regularizing the unauthorized pump set does not arise at all. Therefore, necessary declaration is not furnished properly, the department is having right to initiate proceeding for offence and is also having right to disconnect the supply and to forfeit the deposit and to recover the fine amount.
Thus, by considering the report, the following final order is passed:
As per reference No (1) in your application for regularization of unauthorized pump set in Sy.No.231/3, since you have given incorrect information, the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Receipt No.85300/12-09-11) and deposit of Rs.4,425/- (Receipt No.935391/12/09/11) is forfeited and the unauthorized pump set existing in the disputed Sy.No.229/1 will be disconnected forthwith.
Yours Faithfully Sd/ 24/9 Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.) MESCOM, Vittal Sub division, Vittal.”
5. The reasons assigned by the Respondent Authority in the impugned order for denying the regularization of the unauthorized pump set is a valid reason and since the regularization is sought for the unauthorized pump set admittedly situate in Sy.No.229/1 of the said Manila Village for which some civil dispute is pending in the Land Tribunal for last many years the regularization cannot be done, so long as that dispute is not resolved even though the land to be cultivated is in the nearby Sy.No.231/3.
6. The pump set which is sought to be utilized for watering the field and irrigation is admittedly located in Sy.No.229/1 for which there is a dispute pending in the Land Tribunal. Therefore, innocuous mentioning of Sy.No.231/3 in Column No.4 of the Application Form- Annexure-B does not entitle the petitioner to seek the regularization of the pump set located in the nearby disputed Sy.No.229/1 and therefore, the impugned order requires no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, since the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that the dispute about the said Sy.No.229/1 in Manila Village is pending with the concerned Land Tribunal, Bantwal, for last thirty years, in the said circumstances, the Land Tribunal is directed to decide the pending matter expeditiously within a period of six months from today and submit a report to this Court and if such a dispute is resolved in favour of the present petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to move the Respondent Authority for regularization of the pump set in Sy.No.229/1 thereafter.
With the above observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE TL