IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.40239 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI V.MADAIAH S/O SRI MARI SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT VANDARAGUPPE VILLAGE, CHENNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 161. ...PETITIONER (By Ms.K.R.MAMATHA, ADVOCATE FOR Sri N.SRIRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562 159 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DIVISION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562 159 4. THE TAHASILDHAR CHENNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DIVISION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA -562 159 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA -562 159 6. THE CHIEF OFFICER POLICE TRAINING INSTITUTION, CHENNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA -562 159.
7. THE PRINCIPAL, } impleaded vide POLICE TRAINING COLLEGE, } order dated: CHENNAPATNA TALUK, } 08.03.2019 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR – 562 159. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE R-2, 3 AND 4 TO ALLOT TWO (2) ACRES OF LAND TO THE PETITIONER OR ALTERNATIVELY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF RS.27,50,000/- PER ACRE (TOTALING AMOUNT OF RS.55,00,000/-).
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
* * * * O R D E R The petitioner herein is seeking a direction to Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to allot two acres of land to the petitioner or alternatively for issue of direction to respondents to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.27,50,000/- per acre.
2. In the prayer column, there is no reference to the survey number in which they are seeking allotment of two acres. The contents of the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner is contending that his father Sri.Mari Siddegowda was the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.46 of Honneganahalli Village measuring to an extent of two acres. The petitioner also states that he was actual cultivator of the said land for more than twenty years, based on the said occupation and cultivation, the aforesaid land was said to be allotted by the Assistant Commissioner of Ramanagara Sub-Division vide his order bearing No.Bhoo.Maa.Ni.(3)485:1985-86 dated 24.01.1985, which is at Annexure- ‘A’. It is also stated that grant certificate was issued in the name of the petitioner’s father on 18.04.1985, subject to various conditions, which is at Annexure- ‘B’ and simultaneously, they would also rely upon RTCs for the years 1986-1987 up 1997-1998, which are in ‘C’ series and mutation is also said to be done vide Annexure – ‘D’.
3. In this background, it is stated that Police Trainign School was established on the said land in Chennapatna during the year 1964 in a land belonging to Honneganahalli in Sy.Nos.46, 47, 48, 52, 187, 188, 189 and 190 measuring to an extent of 51 acres. It is also contended that, the said Training Institute is constructed encroaching upon the land granted in favour of the petitioner’s father. When the entire pleadings and documents are looked into, there cannot be more inconsistent plea than the one which is seen in these proceedings. When the pleadings of the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner is the owner of the property, the title deeds are not produced. Simultaneously, it is stated that the petitioner’s father was in cultivation of the land for more than twenty years before the land is allotted in his favour. While saying so, the petitioner would contend that on the very same land, Police Training School is constructed in the year 1964.
4. The said submission appears to be incorrect in as much as the documents, which are produced by the Principal of the Karnataka State Police Training Unit, Chennapatna, would indicate that they were put in possession of the land in Sy.No.46 on 30.03.1964 and thereafter, they have constructed the building. When that being the factual situation the contention that the same land was granted in favour of petitioner’s father on 24.01.1985 vide Annexure – ‘A’ does not stand to reason. In this background, the original file which is produced by the learned AGA on behalf of the State Police Training School clearly indicate that the pleadings and prayer in the writ petition is inconsistent with each other and the same cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in as much as no grounds are made out to consider the prayer in this writ petition.
Sd/- JUDGE DH