IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO. 1683 OF 2019(KLR-RES) Between:
Jayashekarappa Gowda S/o Shivarudrappa Gowda Aged about 69 years Residing at Hanaji Village Soraba Taluk Shivamogga District ... Appellant (By Shri. Jayakumar S Patil, Senior Counsel Along with Shri.Sandesh T.B. Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Dept. of Revenue M.S.Building, Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru-01.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Shivamogga District Shivamogga -577201.
3. The Assistant Commissioner Sagar Sub- Division Sagara Taluk Shivamogga District-577201.
4. The Thashildar Soraba Taluk Shivamogga District-577429. ... Respondents (By Shri. D.Nagaraj, AGA.) This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to allow this appeal and setting aside the order dated: 29.03.2019 in WP No.8199/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and consequently quashing the order dated 21.06.2013 in Order bearing SAM.L.N.D. 2S.R.19/2012-13[21944/12-13] vide Annexure-J in WP No.8199/2019 passed by the respondent No.2.
This appeal, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day,
Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. In the concerned village, in gomal land in Sy.No.121 measuring 33 acres and 31 guntas, an area of 5 acres out of the said land was granted by the State Government for the benefit of a Village Panchayat, an area of 4 acres was granted to KPTCL. The objection of the appellant is to the grant of one acre of land for providing residence to the Nomadic Tribal Community. The challenge by the appellant is only to the reservation of one acre for providing residence to the people belonging to Nomadic Tribal Community. The order dated 21st June 2013 providing for the said reservation was challenged by the appellant before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the KAT’). The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. Therefore, a writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge.
3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that, as per 2007 census, number of cattle in the village was 293 and therefore the balance gomal land which has remained available after the aforesaid allotment will be totally insufficient. He, would, therefore submit that this aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
4. We have heard the submissions. We have perused the findings recorded in appeal preferred by the appellant before the KAT. It has noted in the judgment that only one villager has preferred the appeal. Moreover, it was observed that to the reservation of 5 acres provided to gramthana and a reservation of 4 acres provided to KPTCL, the appellant has not raised any objection and his objection is confined only to reservation of one acre of land for housing the Nomad Tribal Community.
5. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always discretionary and equitable. After considering the contentions of the appellant, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned order. After having perused the findings recorded by the KAT, we find that the learned Single Judge was justified in refusing to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. The learned Single Judge has directed a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the appellant. Considering the fact that the appellant’s objection remained confined only to an area of one acre allotted for housing the Nomad Tribe Community, the learned Single Judge was justified in imposing the cost.
Hence, no interference is called for. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-