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 Nos.36510 – 36530/2017 (KLR – RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI KRISHNAIAH S/O BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
2. SRI DYAVE GOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.
3. SRI SIDDEGOWDA S/O DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
4. SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O ANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
5. SRI MANJUNATH S/O PUTTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
6. SRI AMEERSAB S/O AMEED HUSSAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
7. SRI H.B.KUMAR S/O H.D.BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
8. SRI RAMESHA S/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
9. SMT.KALAMMA W/O GIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
10. SRI EREGOWDA S/O PUTTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
11. SR SHIVARAJU S/O PUTTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
12. SRI SUBBE GOWDA S/O RANGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
13. SRI H.K.CHANDRE GOWDA S/O KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
14. SMT.SAROJAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
15. SRI MOHAMAD SAB S/O ABDUL SAB AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.
16. SMT.SHIVAMMA W/O HALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
17. SRI MANJE GOWDA S/O NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
18. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.
19. SRI RANGE GOWDA S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
20. SRI H.D.PUTTE GOWDA S/O DYAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
21. SRI H.M.JAYANNA @ JAYARAMA S/O C.MANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT HACHAGODANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI S.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADV.] AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201 3. SRI DASE GOWDA S/O LAKKE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR 4. SRI THIRUMALA GOWDA S/O THIMME GOWDA, AGE MAJOR 5. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O RANGE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR 6. SRI GAVI GOWDA S/O KALE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR 7. SRI RAME GOWDA S/O MANJE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR 8. SRI K.SOMMAIAH S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGE MAJOR RESPONDENTS No.3 TO 8 ARE R/AT HACHAGODANAHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R-3 TO R-8 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.09.2018.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 30.03.2017 PASSED IN MISC.NO.74/2009, VIDE ANNEX-K, ORDER DATED 03.06.2009 PASSED IN MISC.NO.25/2005 VIDE ANNEX-H AND ORDER DATED 12.04.2005 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.1132/2004(REV.) VIDE ANNEX-F, ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND RESTORE THE APPEAL NO.1132/2004 AND HEAR THE MATTER ON MERITS.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioners have called in question the correctness and legality of the orders dated 30.03.2017 passed in Misc. No.74/2009 vide Annexure-K as well as the order dated 03.06.2009 passed in Misc.No.25/2005 vide Annexure-H and the order dated 12.04.2005 passed in Appeal No.1132/2004 vide Annexure-F on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ['KAT' for short], Bengaluru and sought for restoration of the appeal No.1132/2004 on the file of the KAT to hear the matter on merits.
3. The petitioners are claiming to be the landless persons of Hachagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk and they have been cultivating the lands in Sy.Nos.12 and 13, Government land, for more than 30 years. It is contended that on the application filed by them to the Bagarhukum Committee, the said Committee recommended to issue Saguvali Chit to the petitioners and others as per the report dated 30.07.1994. Pursuant to which Saguvali Chit is said to have been issued to 57 persons granting 29 guntas each and all the revenue documents were made in the name of the grantees, since then all of them have been in possession and cultivating the lands till date. Further it is alleged that when the things stood thus, a document has been created by the then Village Secretary Sri.Gavi Rangegowda that an extent of 4 acres in Sy.Nos.12 and 13 of Hachagondanahalli Village was allotted to 8 persons who lost the land in Hemavathi Project under Rehabilitation Scheme.
4. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that after detailed enquiry made by them, it was noticed that the land in Sy.Nos.12 and 13 was not reserved for the rehabilitation scheme of the Hemavathi Project and criminal proceedings are pending against the said Village Secretary Gavi Rangegowda for creating false documents. However, respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Committee, considering the appeal filed by such grantees under the rehabilitation scheme. On further appeal by the petitioners herein, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the same with a direction to the Tahsildar, Hassan to conduct an enquiry with regard to the legality and genuineness of granting the lands in question in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 8 therein/grantees under rehabilitation scheme. Petitioners preferred appeal before KAT, Bengaluru challenging the same.
5. It is evident that the appeal No.1132/2004 filed by the petitioners before the KAT at Bengaluru got dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.04.2005. Miscellaneous Petition No.25/2005 was filed by the petitioners herein, to recall the order dated 12.04.2005 and to restore the same to be heard on merits, the same came to be dismissed on 03.06.2009 since there was no representation on behalf of the appellants/petitioners, despite adjourning the case as a last chance and no arguments were advanced. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred Miscellaneous Petition No.74/2009. Again, the said miscellaneous petition came to be dismissed on 30.03.2017 mainly on the ground that the petitioners are protracting the matter since 13 years in miscellaneous proceedings and the Miscellaneous Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, these writ petitions.
6. On 26.09.2018, this Court recorded the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner has reasoned that the lands over which the petitioners lay a claim is part of the land that has been notified under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ['Act' for short] for the purpose of rehabilitating the persons who have lost their lands on account of submergence in the course of establishing the Hemavathi Reservoir Project, but in fact, no such order or proceedings is there, reserving the land as observed by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, directed the learned High Court Government Pleader to secure instructions and the records pertaining to the proceedings reserving the lands in Sy.No.12 and 13 of the Hachagondanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader has placed on record the list of lands reserved for being granted to the displaced Ryots of Hemavathi Reservoir Project in Hassan Taluk, Hassan District, wherein Sy.Nos.12 and 13 of Hachagondanahalli Village measuring 6 acres 28 guntas and 23 acres 2 guntas respectively are figured at Sl.No.5. The same demolishes the tenor of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the non-reservation of the lands for Rehabilitation Scheme. In other words, the contention of the petitioners is misconceived and contrary to the records.
8. Further, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent Nos.3 to 8 are not the genuine allottees of the subject-land also do not merit any consideration for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner has directed the Tahasildar, Hassan to enquire in to the genuineness of the allotment of the subject-lands in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 8.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the enquiry directed by the Deputy Commissioner is under process and 5 applications are pending for consideration under the Rehabilitation Scheme.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced. The lackadaisical attitude of the petitioners in not prosecuting the matter with all seriousness is apparent on the record. Having suffered an order in Miscellaneous Petition No.25/2005, it was obligatory on the part of the petitioners to pursue the matter with all seriousness and interest in Miscellaneous Petition No.74/2009. However, the same being lacking and in the absence of satisfactory explanation offered, the KAT was compelled to dismiss the petition on 30.03.2017 negating the arguments advanced by the petitioners. The conduct of the petitioners would indicate that they are interested to keep the lis alive rather than to put a quietus to the litigation. Pendency of the Miscellaneous Petitions from 2005 to 2017 is the classic example of such delay tactics played by the petitioners.
11. Even otherwise, the main ground of challenge made by the petitioners on the merits of the case that no lands are reserved in Sy.No.12 and 13 under the Rehabilitation Scheme of the Hemavathi Reservoir Project falls to ground for the reasons aforesaid in the preceding paragraphs.
12. The Tahsildar, Hassan Taluk has already reported after conducting spot inspection on 07.12.1997 that the land in question comes under the land reserved for rehabilitation scheme under the Hemavathi Reservoir Project, as could be seen from the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 29.05.2002. Hence, further directing the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry on this aspect does not arise.
Writ Petitions are devoid of merit and hence, stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.
SSJ: W.P.Nos.36510-36530/2017 24.01.2019 ORDER ON ‘FOR BEING SPOKEN TO’ These matters were considered and decided on 21.01.2019. However, while finalising the order passed in these matters, several aspects of incongruity and inconsistencies in the stand of respective parties were noticed and hence, these matters are placed ‘for being spoken to’ today.
It is noticed that the Tahsildar, Hassan has not concluded the enquiry till date despite the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.09.2003, whereby a specific direction was issued to submit the report within three months. The same has to be viewed seriously and calls for initiating stern action against such officer for non-compliance of the order of the higher authority. Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.1 cannot be a silent spectator and is required to take suitable action/initiate appropriate proceedings against such officer if the report is not submitted in compliance with the order dated 23.09.2003.
However, in the interest of justice, further eight weeks time is granted to the Tahsildar, Hassan to conclude the enquiry and to submit the report before the Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.1. If such report is not submitted within the time frame as aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner shall initiate appropriate action against the Tahsildar, Hassan.
PMR Sd/- JUDGE