IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.26506/2017(LR-RES) BETWEEN SRI. N. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS SON OF LATE NARASIMHAIAH PRINTER, PUBLISHER AND EDITOR OF NELAMANGALA NAGARI MONTHLY MAGAZINE N.N. PRINTERS, ADEPET, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE-562 123 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS NEW DELHI - 111 001 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 009 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT T V TOWER Dr. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH TALUK DIVISION K G ROAD BANGALORE-560 009 7. Dr. G NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT No.1344 3RD CROSS, MRHB COLONY 24TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR NORTH BANGALORE-560 079 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANIYAN JOSEPH, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1, SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.2 TO 6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2005 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.6 IN LRF No.(1).22/2005-06 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No.6 TO RE-ENQUIRE THE CASE BEARING NO.LRF(1)22:2005-06 AGAINST THE RESPONDENT No.7 FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 79A AND 79B OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT IN PURCHASING SY.NOs.67/2 AND 67/3 OF DASANAPURA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Central Government Standing Counsel takes notice for respondent No.1.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.2 to 6.
3. The petitioner states that he is an agriculturist owning land in Pillahalli village, Dasanapura hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and also a journalist-cum-editor and publisher of monthly magazine viz., “Nelamangala Nagari”. He claims to be espousing the cause of public, particularly the residents of Nelamangala.
4. According to the petitioner, respondent No.7, a citizen of the United States of America, had purchased an extent of land measuring 01 Acre 32 guntas in Sy. No.67/2 and another extent of land measuring 03 Acres 33 guntas in Sy. No.67/3 situate in Dasanapura village, Bengaluru North Taluk, described in schedule to the writ petition, in violation of the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Based on the report of Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, respondent No.6 – Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk, initiated proceedings in case No.LRF(1).22:2005-06 against respondent No.7 under Section 83 of the Act for violation of the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and issued him show cause notice while calling upon him to produce certain documents to prove his case.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.6 without verifying the records furnished by respondent No.7, by his order dated 15.07.2005, has dropped the said proceedings merely on the basis of declaration made by respondent No.7 in his affidavit, however, subject to the condition that if the said information turned out to be false, then the order dropping the proceedings would be recalled.
6. Hence, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.07.2005 passed by respondent No.6 vide Annexure ‘G’ to the petition and for a direction to the respondent No.6 to re- enquire the case bearing No.LRF(1).22:2005-2006 against respondent No.7.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 6. Perusal of the records would indicate that the petitioner herein had approached this Court earlier by filing writ petitions in W.P. No.33220/2016 (LR-RES) and W.P. No.34221/2016 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 therein (respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6 respectively in the present writ petition), to re-enquire the case against respondent No.5 – Dr. G. Narayana (respondent No.7 in the present petition) for violation of the provisions of sections 79A and 79B of the Act. The said writ petitions came to be rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 21.06.2016, wherein it is observed in para No.5 as follows:
“I am rejecting these petitions on the short ground of the petitioner having no locus standi. I am not examining these petitions on merits for want of litigational competence on the part of the petitioner. The possibility of the petitioner being a public-spirited citizen and espousing a valid public cause cannot be ruled out, but then, the same has to be done by filing a duly constituted public interest petition.”
8. The petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid order, filed public interest litigation in W.P. No.61184/2016 (LR-RES- PIL), which had come up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court on 27.01.2017. On the said day, Division Bench headed by Hon`ble The Chief Justice, dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
“3. It is not possible for the writ court to decide as to whether the respondent No.7 has lawfully acquired the property or not.
4. The writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.”
9. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the very same relief as sought in earlier writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos.33220/2016, 34221/2016 and W.P. No.61184/2016. The cause title to the writ petition discloses that the petitioner is a printer, publisher and editor of a local magazine in Nelamangala and he claims to espouse cause of the residents of Nelamangala and with that public spirit, it appears he has filed the present writ petition.
10. When admittedly, this Court on earlier occasion had rejected the writ petitions in W.P. Nos.33220/2016 and 34221/2016 filed by the petitioner herein for the very same relief as sought in the present writ petition and permitted him to file public interest litigation and the petitioner having failed in that also, is not competent to reagitate the same issue before this Court wasting valuable time of this Court. This Court would observe that filing of third writ petition before this Court is nothing but abuse of the process of law and it amounts to wasting the valuable time of this Court.
11. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Registry within 15 days from today.
12. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma