IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NOs.40015/2018 & 30840-30845/2019 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN:
1 . S.K. PRABHU S/O THEERTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
2 . S.K. SURESH S/O THEERTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3 . S.K. BHUVANESH S/O THEERTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
4 . M. SRINIVAS S/O H. MANJPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
5 . MANJAMMA D/O H. MANJPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
6 . SUMITHRA W/O K. MANJPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
7 . MANJAPPA M.H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KOMMANAL VILLAGE SHIMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT – 577 225. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGGA DISTRICT SHIMOGGA – 577 201.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA SUB DIVISION SHIMOGGA – 577 201.
4 . THE MEMBER SECRETARY TALLUKA UNAUTHORISED CULTIVATION REGULARISATION COMMITTEE, SHIMOGGA TALUK DISTRICT – 577 201.
5 . THE THAHASILDAR SHIMOGGA TALUK SHIMOGGA – 577 201.
(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND TO TAKE NECESSARY MEASURES AS PER RESOLUTION DATED:07.03.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY R-4 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF THE PETITIONERS IN SURVEY NUMBER 110 OF KOMMANAL VILLAGE AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners and other villagers are said to be the permanent residents of Kommanal village, Shimogga Taluk and claim that they have submitted applications in Form No.53 for regularization of their unauthorized occupation and cultivation of land in various bits of Sy.No.110 of said village.
2. Extracts of the register maintained in Form No.56 by fifth respondent authority which is at Annexure-A would disclose proof of petitioners having submitted applications in Form No.53 for regularization of their unauthorized cultivation of lands in question. Names of petitioners- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5th petitioner’s father name, 6th petitioner’s husband name and name of 7th petitioner is reflected at Sl.Nos.2, 1, 4, 10, 6, 1 and 44 respectively. Survey sketch at Annexure-B would also disclose that jurisdictional surveyor having conducted survey of subject land has identified and marked the extent of land in occupation of each of petitioners which is being cultivated by them.
3. Fourth respondent by resolution dated 31.01.2001 rejected the application submitted by petitioners which came to be called in question in R.A.No.22/2014-15 which came to be allowed by order dated 01.09.2015- Annexure-C and matter came to be remitted back to fourth respondent committee for fresh disposal, since, name of the Hobli in said order was incorrectly depicted and an amendment order came to be passed on 01.03.2016 vide Annexure-C1 by the third respondent.
4. On such remand, fourth respondent committee passed a resolution on 26.11.2016 and resolved to forward the proposal to appropriate Government for withdrawing the land from the head “Kharab Gudda” for being converted as ‘Gomal’ so that it could be made available for grant by considering the applications of the petitioners who have sought for regularization of their unauthorized occupation and cultivation to the extent stated in their representations. Subsequently, fourth respondent committee by resolution dated 07.03.2018 has reiterated its earlier resolution dated 26.11.2016 and has resolved that petitioner and other similarly placed persons are in possession and enjoyment of said property from the year 1973-74 and as such it has recommended to the appropriate Government to correct or amend the entry reflect the land in question from ‘B kharab Gudda’ to ‘Gomal’ so as to enable the committee to regularize their unauthorized cultivation. On account of non consideration of their requests and contending no action has been taken by the appropriate Government, petitioners are before this Court.
5. Sri.M.R.Hiremathad, learned counsel appearing for petitioners would reiterate the grounds urged in the writ petition.
6. Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents has filed a memo enclosing communication dated 14.08.2017 addressed by the office of the Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar as well as communication dated 22.06.2018 received by the Deputy Commissioner from the office of the first respondent.
7. Perusal of said two communications would disclose that recommendations of resolutions passed by the committee for converting the land has been considered and rejected by the appropriate Government. Hence, question of issuing writ of mandamus to respondents to consider the applications of petitioners to take necessary measures as per resolution dated 07.03.2018 vide Annexure-E passed by the fourth respondent though may not arise, fact remains that fourth respondent having passed resolution on 26.11.2016-Annexure-D had reiterated said resolution in its meeting held on 07.03.2018 and reports submitted by the respondent as well as surveyor has been referred in the said resolution which would disclose that petitioners are in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of lands to the extent claimed in their respective applications. This resolution date 07.03.2018 obviously was not before the regional commissioner when communication dated 22.06.2018 came to be forwarded by first respondent to second respondent. As such, this Court is of the considered view that it would be apt and appropriate to direct first respondent to examine the claim afresh without reference to its earlier communication dated 22.06.2018 by keeping in mind the resolution dated 07.03.2018 of the committee and the reports of revenue authorities expeditiously and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear till adjudication and disposal of said claim of the petitioners by the first respondent, no precipitative action shall be taken by the respondents- 2, 3 and 5.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE RU