IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.6755 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. S. UMAPATHI SON OF M.R.THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 536.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHAMMED RIZWANE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA -577 536.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 536.
4. SRI. THIPPERUDRASWAMY GRAMEENA VIDYA SAMSTE (R) SRI THIPPERUDRASWAMY RURAL EDUCATION TRUST (R) NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE AND POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5. ABU BAKER SIDDIQUE SON OF K. IBRAHIM SAB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536.
6. M. T. MAHALINGAPPA SON OF M. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN W.P.2192/2017 ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P.2192/2017 ON 27.10.2017 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR; PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.2192/2017, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. Even though there is delay in filing the appeal, we have heard the appeal on merit.
3. The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.930 of 2007. The petitioner claims that he is a resident of Nayakanahatti village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, wherein he was allotted a site by the Grama Panchayat in Sy.No.191 of Nayakanahatti. It is the case of the petitioner that Sy.No.191 of Nayakanahatti village totally measures 34 acres 11 guntas, out of which 11 acres was transferred to the then Town Municipal Council, Nayanakanathatti in the year 1972-73. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner without any enquiry granted 5 acres of land to the 4th respondent by order dated 12.07.2007. It is stated that the open land was utilized by the villagers for Jathra of Sri. Guru Thipperudraswamy temple and in the said land the Gram Panchayat has formed sites and distributed the same to eligible villagers. Aggrieved by the grant of land in favour of the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.930/2007 under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Tribunal by order dated 30.06.2016 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge on hearing both sides and on consideration of the contentions raised by the parties dismissed the writ petition holding that the land granted in favour of the 4th respondent- Education Institution is just and proper. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge is in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the appeal papers.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge is wholly erroneous in that failed to appreciate the fact that the land granted to the 4th respondent would also cover the site granted to the petitioner and other villagers by the Gram Panchayat. The Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal as not maintainable as the land granted to the 4th respondent is not in accordance with law. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition since the land granted is to an Education Institution and for a good cause. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. The petitioner who claims that he is a resident of Nayakanahatti village and he was allotted a site in Sy.No.191 by the village Panchayat. To show that the Gram Panchayat allotted site to the petitioner or any other villagers, the petitioner has not produced any piece of paper. The manner in which the writ petition is filed would indicate that there is no bonafide in the writ petition. The 2nd respondent/Deputy Commissioner by order dated 12.07.2007 granted 5 acres of land in Sy.No.191 of Nayakanahatti village in favour of 4th respondent for educational purpose. The Deputy Commissioner before granting the land has obtained report from the Assistant Commissioner and Block Education Officer, Challakere with regard to the activities of the 4th respondent. It is also noted by the Deputy Commissioner that the 4th respondent is imparting education wherein 90% of the students belong to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe and Backward Community. The land in question was leased to 4th respondent in the year 1975 itself and the 4th respondent was utilizing the said land for a very long time for educational purposes. Under the impugned order, the same land has been granted in favour of 4th respondent. In the absence of any document showing grant of site in favour of the petitioner in Sy.No.191 of Nayakanahatti village, the petitioner would have no locus-standi to question the land granted in Sy.No.191 of Nayakanahatti village in favour of the 4th respondent. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to call for interference. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2018 stands rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ CT:bms