IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.29205-29206/2018 & 30602-30603/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. ANNAPURNA W/O LATE VISHWANATH M.P. AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS KADAKHOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 577 101 2. H.M.SHOBHA W/O LATE GIRISH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS KADAKHOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 577 101 3. MEGHANA D/O LATE GIRISH AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS KADAKHOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 577 101 4. MANOJ S/O LATE GIRISH AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS KADAKHOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 577 101 PETITIONER NOS.3 & 4 ARE MINORS, HENCE REP. BY THEIR MOTHER SHOBHA – PETITIONER NO.2 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHANTESH S. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA – 577 101 3. K. CHOWDAIAH S/O YELADALLI KARAIAH AGE: MAJOR KADAKHOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 577 101 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R2; SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3-ABSENT) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES, BENGALURU IN CASE NO.235/2017 (DOURJANYA) DATED 22.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-E).
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Syed Akbar Pasha, learned counsel for Sri Mahantesh S.Hosmath, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri C.Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2.
The petitions are admitted for hearing and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners seek for quashing of the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by respondent no.1- Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the petitions briefly stated are that petitioner no.1’s husband late Vishwanath was cultivating the inam land bearing Survey No.128 in Maddur Taluk. The aforesaid land was granted by Maharaja of Mysore on 19.11.1826 by issuing a Sannad. It is further averred in these petitions that ancestors of the petitioners were in possession of the aforesaid land to an extent of 7 acres 20 guntas and after coming into force of Inams Abolition Act, an application for regrant was filed by Vishwanath. The Land Tribunal, on the basis of the revenue records, found that the petitioners’ ancestors were in possession of the land to an extent of 3 acres 3 guntas. Thereafter, occupancy rights was granted by the order dated 31.11.1987. Respondent no.3 has assailed the validity of the aforesaid order of the Land Tribunal in a writ petition before this Court. This Court, by order dated 31.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.37047/2015, upheld that the application was filed by respondent no.3 seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question belatedly. The order passed by this Court has attained finality. Respondent no.3 thereafter approached respondent no.1-Commission and thereupon the Commission by order dated 22.03.2018 directed the authorities to consider the claim of respondent no.3. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have approached this court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent no.1 ought not to have directed consideration of the claim of respondent no.3 in view of the order dated 31.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.37047/2015. The aforesaid submission is not fairly opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1.
5. In view of the submissions made and taking into account the order dated 31.03.2016 passed in W.P.No.37047/2015 and for the reasons assigned therein, the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by respondent no.1-
Commission cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is quashed and set aside.
In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.