IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.44574 OF 2018 (KLR - RES) BETWEEN:
RUKMINAMMA, D/O MUTHAKKA @ MUTHAMMA AND KUNT PALLELLAPPA, W/O ELE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KADHARANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 208.
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 560 121.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA – 560 121.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, GOWRIBIDANUR – 561 208.
... PETITIONER 5. THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, GOWRIBIDANUR – 561 208.
6. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KURUDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KURUDI VILLAGE AND POST, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TQ., CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 210.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.C.BALARAJ, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO R-1 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – G DATED 24.08.2018, REPRESENTATION DATED 24.08.2018 TO R-5 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – H, REPRESENTATION DATED 23.08.2018 TO R-2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – J, REPRESENTATION DATED 24.08.2018 TO R-4 COPY PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE – K AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is claiming to be in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.5 of Kadharanahalli village, Hosur Hobli, Gowribidanur taluk, Chickballapura District and claiming regularization of unauthorized occupation and cultivation have filed application. On account of non- consideration of said application No.8577 dated 30.7.1991, mother of the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.34231/1998, which came to be allowed by order dated 21.11.1998 vide Annexure B. While allowing the said writ petition, Co-ordinate Bench had made the following observation:-
“3. It is the case of the petitioner xx xx xx xx in accordance with law. The materials placed on record would prima facie show that the petitioner had filed an application seeking regularisation of her unauthorized occupation in respect of the land in question as per Annexure-A on 30.7.1991 itself. The Annexure-B produced by the petitioner would show that she has been in unauthorised occupation of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.5 belonging to the Government. It is her specific case xx xx xx xx statutory duties.
In the result, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner if any as per Annexure-A in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in that behalf within a reasonable time but at any rate not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.”
2. On account of above direction issued by the Court having not complied, petitioner approached the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner seeking implementation who by order dated 20.10.2000 Annexure-F had directed the Tahsildar to take steps for implementation of the direction issued in W.P.No.34231/1998 dated 21.11.1998. Yet, steps have not been taken by the respondents, as such, petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that Land Grant Committees across the states are yet to be constituted. In W.P.Nos.25195-25199/2019 & 26948-26952/2019 disposed of on 27.9.2019 this Court while placing the affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue on record, had passed the following order:
“3. Today, Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents has filed an affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Department of Revenue whereunder it is stated that on formation of new Government, a notification has been issued cancelling appointment of non-official members appointed to Bagar Hukum committee on 27.08.2019 and Revenue Minister, Government of Karnataka, by communication dated 23.09.2019 addressed to all the members of Legislative Assembly has sought for their suggestion to constitute Bagar Hukum committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation and as such, on receipt of suggestion from members of Legislative Assembly and on obtaining approval from the Hon’ble Revenue Minister and Hon’ble Chief Minister, matter will be processed on priority basis and committee would be constituted by issuing a notification in that regard.
4. Having regard to the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Revenue and the fact that applications of the petitioners have been pending for the past 27 years, it would be appropriate to issue direction to first respondent to constitute Bagar Hukum committee expeditiously and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. On such constitution of the committee, third respondent shall place all such pending applications before the said committee immediately, who shall thereafter dispose of such applications expeditiously and at any rate, within three months from the date of applications being placed before the committee.”
4. Since the Committee is yet to be constituted, question of issuing direction to the Committee to consider the claim of the petitioner, at this stage, would not arise. Hence, it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the 4th respondent to place application of the petitioner before the said Committee, expeditiously, at any rate within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of its constitution by the 1st respondent and on said application being placed before the Committee i.e., 5th respondent, said Committee shall dispose of the said application, expeditiously, at any rate within an outer limit of three months from the date of placing of the said application before it. Ordered accordingly.
5. In the light of claim of the petitioner being at large and this Court in the earlier round of litigation having opined that the petitioner is in possession, question of taking coercive steps either to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question or proceeding in that regard would not arise. Hence, respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are hereby directed not to take any precipitative action against petitioner either from dispossessing from the land in question or taking any other coercive measures till the application of the petitioner is considered, adjudicated and disposed of by the 5th respondent - Land Grant Committee.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE bkp