IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.2843-2846 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHIKKANARASAMMA WIFE OF LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. SRI. RAMAPPA SON OF RAMU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. SRI. GANGAPPA SON OF LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SRI. NARASIMHAPPA SON OF LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ALL RESIDENTS OF MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI GAURIBIDANUR TALUK-562101. CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101.
4. THE THASILDAR GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, GAURIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVCATE) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 18/01/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.35004- 007/2017 AS THE SAME IS IMPUGNED. PERVERSE AND CAPRICIOUS AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.35004- 35007 of 2017, by which the petitions were dismissed, the writ petitioners are in appeal.
2. Even though there is delay in filing the appeals, we have heard the appeals on merit .
3. The petitioners filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 18.4.2017 passed by the 4th respondent- Tahsildar and for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider representation by conducting necessary enquiry as per law. Under impugned order dated 18.4.2017, the Tahsildar based on the report of Village Accountant and Taluk surveyor held that the petitioners have encroached ‘Angajali Inam’ land in Sy.No.344/1 of Manchenahalli Village, Gowribidanur Taluk, and ordered to vacate the encroachment and to take criminal action under section 192 (A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The petitioners claim that they requested to grant a land measuring 2 acres 22 guntas in Sy.Nos.344/1, 344/2 and 344/3 of Manchenahalli Village, Gowribidanur Taluk, which is an ‘Angajali Inam’ land in their favour by submitting representations. The said land is said to have been granted to one Sri. Ramappa as Inam, who was Angajali Village Officer. It is stated that the petitioners are successors and original Inamdars and they are in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is stated that the petitioners did not apply for re-grant of these lands as they were not aware of the procedures. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar issued notice dated 25.3.2017 to the 1st petitioner to vacate the land in question. Questioning the said notice, the petitioners had approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.15537 of 2017 and 15989-15990 of 2017 and this Court, by order dated 13.4.2017 dismissed the writ petitions. However, granted liberty to the petitioners to produce all the material in support of their case before the Tahsildar and observed that the Tahsidlar shall not dispossess the petitioners from the land in question until he passes a final order. Thereafter, the 4th respondent after hearing the petitioners, by his order dated 18.4.2017 ordered to vacate the encroachment and directed the Authorities to initiate criminal proceedings under section 192 (A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said order was the subject matter of the instant writ petitions. The petitioners in the writ petitions contended that the order is passed without following the legal procedure and without giving sufficient opportunity. The representations given by the petitioners are not considered in its proper perspective.
The learned Single Judge, by impugned order dated 18.1.2018 dismissed the writ petitions holding that since the encroachment is admitted, the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar would not call for interference. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners are in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the fact that the respondents have passed the impugned order without following the legal procedure and without giving sufficient opportunity. Further it is contended that the Authorities have failed to consider the representations given by the petitioners. The learned counsel contended that without giving sufficient opportunity, after the order of this court, the 4th respondent passed the order.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submit that the petitioners have admitted that they are in possession of the land in question, which is unauthorized. Hence, the 4th respondent-Tahsildar has rightly passed the impugned order.
7. On going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal papers, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has passed a reasoned order which would not call for any interference. The petitioners state that the land in question is ‘Angajali Inam’ which stands in the name of petitioners. The 4th respondent- Tahsildar on an enquiry on the complaint, took action to vacate the encroachment by the petitioners over the land in question. The Tahsildar issued notice dated 25.3.2017, to show cause why action should not be taken for unauthorisedly encroachment in Sy.No.344/1 to an extent of 0.08 gunta ‘Angajali Inam’ land and why criminal action under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, should not be initiated. Challenging the said notice, the petitioners had approached this Court in writ petition Nos.15537 of 2017 and 15989-15990 of 2017. This court by order dated 13.4.2017 passed the following order:
“4. The show cause notice issued by the fourth respondent does not warrant interference by this Court. I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.
5. However, the petitioners are at liberty to produce all the material in support of their case before the Tahasildar. The respondent No.4 – Tahasildar shall not dispossess the petitioners from the land in question until he passes a final order.
8. This Court by above order permitted the petitioners to produce all the material in support of their case before the 4th respondent-Tahsildar. As per the above order it was open for the petitioners to produce the relevant documents to show their occupation over the land in question is authorized and it is not encroachment. The Tahsildar ordered for spot inspection and to submit report. Based on the report of the Revenue Inspector and mahazar of the Taluk Surveyor passed the order holding that petitioners are encroachers of land in Sy.No.344/1 and directed to initiate criminal prosecution under Section 192(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. While passing the order, the Tahsildar has observed that the petitioners belong to Angajali community and they have not made application within time for re-grant of land. The petitioners have admitted and it is their case that the land in question is in their occupation which is unauthorized. Hence, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge on considering the material on record has passed a reasoned order which would not suffer from any perversity nor erroneousness calling for interference. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeals are rejected.
In view of the dismissal of the appeals, I.A.No.1/2018 for condonation of delay stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ