IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.843 – 846/2019 (KLR – RES) BETWEEN:
1. K.M.SRINIVASA REDDY S/O MADHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. K.P.ASHWATH REDDY S/O PAPI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
3. CHOWDA REDDY S/O BYRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
4. K.Y.RAJA REDDY S/O ERAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT KANDLEVARIPALLI VILLAGE, RAYALPAD POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563135 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI RAHUL S. REDDY, ADV.] AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101 3. THE TAHSILDAR SRINIVASAPURA TALUK SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT-563135 4. NARASIMHAPPA S/O LATE NERUGANTI GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
5. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE NERUGANTI GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
6. SEETHAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
7. KADRIPATHI S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
RESPONDENT No.4 TO 7 ARE R/AT KANDLEVARIPALLI VILLAGE, RAYALPAD POST, SRINIVASPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563135 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 26.06.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND 18.06.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND FURTHER DIRECT THE R-3 TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE R-4 TO 7 AND TO REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTION ON THE ROAD.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 26.06.2014 vide Annexure-A and 18.06.2016 vide Annexure-E to the writ petitions.
2. It is not in dispute that the Tahsildar – respondent No.3 has issued a notice dated 15.09.2017 communicating the respondent Nos.4 to 7 and concerned interested parties about the spot inspection to be conducted on 21.09.2017. However, learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to answer the query of the Court regarding the status of the proceedings so initiated.
3. Be that as it may, in view of the proceedings already initiated by the Tahsildar, the request of the petitioners to consider the representation as sought for, does not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to conclude the proceedings initiated in terms of the notice dated 15.09.2017 at Annexure-H to the writ petitions, in an expedite manner, if the proceedings are not concluded so far.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR