IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.2192/2017 (KLR - RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. S. UMAPATHI S/O M.R.THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 536 [BY SRI.G.M.NATARAJ, ADV.,] 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 ... PETITIONER 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 S/O K. IBRAHIM SAB AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 536 6. M.T.MAHALINGAPPA S/O M.THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 536 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE – C THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2016 IN APPEAL NO.930/2007 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner herein is before this Court impugning the order dated 30.06.2016 in appeal No.930/2007 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal(for short ‘KAT’). The KAT rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner herein along with two other persons namely Abu Baker Siddique and M.T. Mahalingappa (respondents No.5 and 6 herein respectively).
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 are said to be allottees of site measuring 40 ft. X60ft. bearing site No. 1 to 3 in ‘A’ Block, formed in RS No.191 within the limits of Grama Panchayath of Nayakanahatti Village. It is stated that they were put in possession of the said sites in the year 1982 pursuant to the proceedings of Panchayat dated 28.11.1980. It is their grievance that subsequently another five acres of land is granted in the very same Sy.No.191, in favour of respondent No.4 herein. The said order is said to be passed by respondent No.2 on 12.7.2007, in No.LND/C.R/218/2006-07 pursuant to the order of the Government bearing No.Kam.E/73/L.G.C./2006 dated 07.04.2007.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 that the land which is granted in favour of the 4th respondent in the year 2007 would overlap on block No.A where site 1 to 3 belonging to the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 is located. Therefore, the said grant is required to be cancelled for the reason that the grant which is made in favour of respondent No.4 is illegal in as much as the respondent is not an institution coming under the Religious and charitable Institutions, therefore, granting of land in its favour is erroneous in as much as the said land also overlapping the sites which are granted in their favour.
4. However, neither in the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal nor in this Court any documents are produced with reference to grant of sites in their favour and the conditions stipulated thereunder. It is seen from the judgment in the appeal No.930/2007 which is at Annexure-‘C’ and also the grounds urged herein, that no development activity has taken place on the site which is granted in favour of the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 which is of the year 1982 and nearly 25 years thereafter having found that the said land being vacant and not being registered in the name of any other persons in the revenue records of Grama Panchayat, the Government has taken appropriate decision to empower the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner to grant 5 acres in sy.No.191, Nayakanahatti village, to respondent No.4-an educational institution, to be utilized for the activities of the school on lease basis, which is held to be just and proper and also legal by the 2nd respondent in the proceedings before him in appeal No.930/2007.
5. While doing so, second respondent has also observed that the appellant in the said proceedings i.e., the petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6 does not have any legal right to challenge the same, in his order it is also observed that they have no locus to file the said appeal in appeal No.930/2007 before the KAT and accordingly dismissed their appeal by judgment dated 30.6.2006.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 , this Court would observe that the order of KAT impugned in this proceedings being just and proper on all the grounds, which are raised therein, does not call for interference by this Court in this proceedings by invoking writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg