IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.31900-31902 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.SUGUNA, W/O.SRI.T.S.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.NO.63, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-3.
2. SMT.RATHNAMMA, W/O.SRI.B.A.LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.20, 7TH MAIN, N.S.PALYA, BTM LAYOUT, II STAGE, BANNERAGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-76.
3. SMT.CHENNAMMA, W/O.LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O NO.48, 4TH TEMPLE ROAD, SIDDARTHA BLOCK, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-3.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.NAVEEN.J.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARAJAPPA.A, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-38.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-09.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-09.
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, S.KARIAPPA ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-78.
(BY SRI.S.B.SHAHAPUR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 SRI.M. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R5) *** ...RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R4 DATED 25.06.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE JOINT REPRESENTATION DATED 4.12.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS REGARDING HAND OVER THE POSSESSION AND EXECUTION OF SALE DEED OF THE SITES BEARING NO.330, FORMED IN SY.NO.64, BILEKAHALLI AND SITE 279 AND 88, FORMED IN SY.NO.23, KODI CHIKKANAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, BILEKAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-J, AS PER HAKKUPATRAS ISSUED BY THE R4 TO THE PETITIONERS AS ANNEXURE-A, B AND C AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS GRANTED TO THE PETITIONERS IN WP NO.14266/07 (G) VIDE ORDER DATED 14.06.2010 OF ANNEXURE-D WITH COSTS OF THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 25.06.2011 passed by the respondent No.4 rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
2. Petitioners are the beneficiaries under Ashraya Scheme. The respondent No.4 allotted the sites to them. Hakku Patra under the said scheme was given to them way back in the year 1992. They have given several representations to the respondents to give possession of the said sites. Despite that the respondents have not taken any steps to handover the possession of the sites in question.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider their representations and to handover possession and execution of the sale deeds in respect of the sites allotted to them under Ashraya scheme. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions. The relevant observations made in W.P. No.28193-195 of 2010 disposed of on 05.10.2010 are as follows:
“Sri Naveen, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court by its order dated 14.06.2010 passed in W.P. No.14266/2007, filed by similarly placed site allottees, allowed the said petitions. He brings to my notice, the operative portion of the order, which is extracted hereinbelow:
“Recording submission of the learned Government Counsel that the State would take action in the matter of allotment, delivery of possession and execution of sale deed of sites allotted to the petitioners, within 3 months from today, nothing further survives for consideration in this petition and is, accordingly disposed of.”
3. Sri R.Devadas, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the concerned authorities have to verify whether the Hakkupatras produced by the petitioners are genuine before the culmination of the allotment proceedings in favour of the petitioners.
4. The Government’s stand cannot vary from case to case, when the facts of the two cases are similar. These petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take action in the matter of allotment, delivery of possession, execution of sale deeds of sites allotted to the petitioners within 3 months from today.
5. Needless to observe that the respondents shall verify and satisfy themselves that the petitioners are the bona fide Hakkupatra holders under the Ashraya Scheme.”
4. After disposal of the writ petitions, the Tahsildar passed the impugned order as per Annexure-F dated 25.06.2011 stating that the lands in dispute are reserved and belong to Forest Department and Office of the Tahsildar has not issued any Hakku Patra to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
5. Mr. Naveen.J.N., learned counsel for petitioners would submit that Annexures - A to C Hakku Patra issued by the Tahsildar have been produced. The Tahsildar has passed the impugned order without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to place before him the Hakku Patra, which are issued by the Tahsildar himself. The impugned order is passed contrary to the principles of natural justice. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petitions.
6. Mr. S.B.Shahapur, the learned HCGP submits that the sites in dispute fall under the jurisdiction of the Forest lands and there is no records to show that the Tahsildar has issued such Hakku Patra to the petitioners. Hence, he sought dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. Heard the learned counsel for parties.
8. The petitioners have produced Hakku Patra as per Anenxures - A to C. This Court on an earlier occasion by the order dated 05.10.2010 in W.P. No.28193-195/2010 has directed the Tahsildar to deliver the possession of the said sites and execution of the sale deeds of the sites allotted to the petitioners within three months with an observation that respondent shall verify and satisfy themselves that the petitioners are the bona fide Hakku Patra holders under the Ashraya Scheme. Further, while determining regarding validity of the Hakku Patra the Tahsildar has not given any notice to the petitioners to produce any documents to establish their rights. The Tahsildar has unilaterally has taken decision and held that there is no Hakku Patra issued from the Office of the Tahsildar. The impugned order Annexure-F is passed without giving any notice to the petitioners, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 25.06.2011 is unsustainable.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4 – Tahsildar with a direction to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioners and pass order in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE vk