IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.48443/2017 (KLR – REG) BETWEEN:
S.B.NAGENDRAPPA S/O SRI BASAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O MELINASAMPALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADV.] AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB DIVISION SAGAR-577401.
3. THE TAHASILDHAR & SECRETARY THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF GOVERNMENT LANDS HOSANAGARA TALUK-577418 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
4. S.S.ONKESHAPPA S/O LATE SRIKANTAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT MELINASAMPALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK-577418 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REVISION PETITION No.09/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-N CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 22122005 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN R.A.NO.7/2005-06 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND FURTHER CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 01092005 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAGAR SUB DIVISION, SAGAR VIDE ANNEXURE-L SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1009.2003, S.R.167/91-92 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ['KAT' for short] in Revision Petition No.9/2006 dated 10.04.2017 whereby the order of the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.7/2005-06 dated 22.12.2005 as well as the Order of the Assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub- division, Sagar dated 01.09.2005 are confirmed.
2. The petitioner is claiming to be a resident of Melinasampalli village, Hosanagara Taluk of Shivamogga District. On the application filed by the petitioner, seeking regularization of unauthorized cultivation and possession of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.6/3 of Melinasampalli village, the competent Committee was pleased to recommend to grant 2 acres of land in Sy.No.6/3 and an order of grant came to be passed by the Tahasildar followed by the grant certificate issued on 22.06.2004.
3. It transpires that on the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 claiming to be an applicant for regularization of unauthorized cultivation in respect of the land in the very same Sy.No.6/3, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of grant, remanded the proceedings to the Committee to consider the application of the petitioner afresh, along with the claim of the respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing an appeal, which came to be dismissed confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and on further revision filed by the petitioner before the KAT, the same came to be dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri.S.V.Prakash, appearing for the petitioner argued that no application was filed by the respondent No.4 in the prescribed form seeking regularization of unauthorized cultivation relating to the land in Sy.No.6/3 and the same is subscribed by the letter and endorsement issued by the Tahasildar on 17.12.2005 and 27.01.2006.
5. Indeed, this argument was considered and addressed by the Deputy Commissioner and a finding is recorded that as per the records of the Assistant Commissioner, there is an application submitted in Form-53 to the Tahasildar on the verification of the Photostat copy of the application along with acknowledgement submitted by the respondent No.4.
6. In view of such finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner and further confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and remanding the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law by jointly considering the applications filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.4, cannot be held to be unjustifiable. However, considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in as much as non-filing of the application by the respondent No.4, the same can be agitated before the respondent No.3 - Committee to enquire into the genuineness of the application said to have been filed by the respondent No.4. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The respondent No.3 – Committee shall take a decision in accordance with law after hearing the parties, in an expedite manner.
With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.