IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.38072 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRAPPA S/O. DYAVAPPA MALAGUNDADAVAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT THORAVANDA VILLAGE, ANAVAT HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 429.
2. LAKSHMAPPA S/O. DYAVAPPA MALAGUNDADAVAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT THORAVANDA VILLAGE, ANAVAT HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 429.
(BY MR. PARAMESWARAIAH D C, ADV.) AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGARA SUB-DIVISION, SAGARA DISTRICT, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA-577 401.
2. THE TAHASILDAR SORABA TALUK, SORABA, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA-577 429.
3. SMT. PARVATAMMA D/O. KURUVATHYAPPA ITTIGERAMANI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, … PETITIONERS HONKANA VILLAGE, HANAGAL TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581104.
(BY MR. Y D HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 MR. VEERENDRA R PATIL, ADV. FOR R3) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 14.6.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-D AND ORDER DTD:21.7.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Parameshwaraiah.D.C, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Veerendra.R, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia prays for quashing of order dated 14.06.2017 as well as 21.07.2017.
4. By order dated 14.06.2017, the Respondent No.2 has provided police protection to Respondent No.3 and by an order dated 21.07.2017, the counsel for Respondent No.1 has directed the petitioner as well as Respondent No.3 not to cultivate the land in question till an appropriate order is passed by the Civil Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 21.07.2017 is per se without jurisdiction as Respondent No.1, viz., Assistant Commissioner has no authority in law to pass such an order.
6. Learned counsel for respondents were unable to point out the provisions under which such an order has been passed.
7. I have heard the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties.
8. Admittedly, the order dated 21.07.2017 has no statutory sanction. In the absence of any statutory sanction, the impugned order dated 21.07.2017 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly, quashed and set aside. Needless to state that the parties shall take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them under the law.
Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV