IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.33899-33924/2018(KLR-REG) BETWEEN 1. JAYARAM S/O ANNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 2. ELUMALAIH S/O ODAMALAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 3. YANJARAPPA S/O GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 4. SETU S/O SAVARI MUTHU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 5. S MANJU S/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 6. VELAGANI W/O THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 7. D LALITHAMMA W/O DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, TARIKERE TOWN, NEAR K.E.B. TARIKERE TALUK-577228 8. ANWARA S/O PACHASAB, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 9. GURU SIDDAPPA S/O GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 10. SAROJAMMA W/O JAYABALU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MC HALLI, HOSA BADAVANE TARIKERE TALUK-577228 11. SUSUMERY W/O SALIES @ VELANGANI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 12. MUNISWAMY S/O ANNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 13. MANIVELEN S/O PACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 14. HANUMANTHA S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 15. S GIRI S/O SHIVA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, H RANGAPURA VILLAGE, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 16. S G RAJA S/O SHIVA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, H RANGAPURA VILLAGE, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 17. A SHIVA S/O ANNAMALAIH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, H RANGAPURA VILLAGE, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 18. RANGEGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 19. SWAMY GOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 20. KEMPAMMA W/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 21. B R SHEKARAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 22. B R JAYAMMA W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 23. ASEENA D/O SYED ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 24. SHANTHAMMA W/O MADE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MC HALLI AT POST, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 25. M RAJAPPA S/O MOTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MC HALLI HOSABADAVANE, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 26. KEMPEGOWDA S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SIDDESHWARA VILLAGE, GOPALA POST, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK-577228 ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT.ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101 2. THE TAHASILDAR TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE, CHICKMAGALUR DIST-577228 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITONERS DATED 22.08.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO THE REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONERS N.25 AND 26 DATED 31/7/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND D RESPECTIVELY.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners herein are applicants seeking regularization of their unathroized cultivation/occupation in a portion of land bearing Sy.No.4 of M.C.Halli village, Kasaba Hobli, Tarikere Taluk.
2. It is stated by the petitioners that they had approached this Court earlier by filing WP.No.2524/2008, wherein they had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 6.9.2000 and endorsement issued by the Tahsildar dated 16.8.2007, which is with reference to rejection of their prayer by the Tahsildar on the basis of the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner.
3. Admittedly, said WP.No.2524/2008 came to be disposed of by order dated 24.11.2008, wherein there was a positive direction by this Court to the Tahsildar in quashing his order dated 16.8.2007 and directing him to place the application of the petitioners before the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation/Occupation along with the copies of scrutiny and other documents to enable the said Committee to take appropriate decision with reference to application of each of the petitioners. Though such direction was issued on 24.11.2008, nothing has been done till today in the matter.
4. When this writ petition is taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent authorities would bring to the notice of this Court that with reference to portion of land in question, the same was wrongfully entered in the name of Forest Department and the same is subsequently recalled as could be seen from the communication received by him vide No.NCRCR.1/2017-18 dated 18.3.2018 from the office of Tahsildar, Tarikere Taluk. In the said letter, there is also reference to an appeal being pending in the office of the Assistant Commissioner in RA.No.234/2017-18 with reference to the petitioners’ applications seeking regularization.
5. In this background, what could be seen is that, the land in Sy.No.4 of M.C.Halli, Kasaba Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, is presently registered as revenue land in revenue records and the same is available for distribution to landless people. If that is so, the learned Additional Government Advocate shall instruct the competent authority to place the applications of the petitioners before the Committee for Regularization of Unauthroized Cultivation/Occupation within 60 days from the date of the new Committee is constituted. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner is also directed to dispose of the appeal in RA.No.234/2017-
18 and to pave way for keeping the applications of the petitioners for consideration before the said Committee. In any event, the Committee shall look into the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within 30 days from the date the said applications are placed before it and report compliance to this Court.
6. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of.
While doing so, it is made clear that if aforesaid directions are not complied within 180 days from this day, it is open for the petitioners to approach the Contempt Court instead of wasting their time before this Court seeking further direction to the respondents.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-