IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION Nos.44734- 44774 OF 2016 (LB-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. THANGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O SRI SWAMY 2. SMT. NINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O LATE MANJAIAH, 3. SMT. JAYANTHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O SRI. ANNAPPA 4. SMT. CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O SRI MANJAIAH, 5. SMT MANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SRI YALAKKI, 6. SMT. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O SRI. VENKATESHA, 7. SMT. YASHODA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI. RAVI, 8. SMT. MOHAN KUMARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O SRI. VENKATESHA, 9. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE RANGAIAH, 10. SMT. SUSHEELA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O SRI. MURTHY, 11. SMT. GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O SRI SANNA LINGAIAH, 12. SMT. NEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI. HANUMAIAH, 13. SMT. MANJULA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O SRI. VENKATARAMU, 14. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, 15. SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O SRI. RANGAIAH, 16. SMT. RATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O LATE KRISHNAIAH, 17. SMT. RATHNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O SRI. YOGESH, 18. SMT. SUJATHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O SRI. VENKATESH, 19. SMT. GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O SRI. PRASAD, 20. SMT. LALITHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SRI. JAWARAIAH, 21. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O SRI. RAVI, 22. SMT. PUTTAMMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O SRI. JAWARAIAH, 23. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O SRI. THIMMAIAH, 24. SMT. PREMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O SRI VENKATARAMU, 25. SMT. AKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O SRI. GOVINDA, 26. SMT. INDIRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, W/O SRI. SOMANNA, 27. SMT. POORNIMA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, W/O SRI. KESHAVAMURTHY, 28. SMT. NANDINI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, W/O LATE MANJUNATHA, 29. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’ SRI. JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 30. SMT. SAKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI. GOWRISHANKARA, 31. SMT. LALITHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O SRI. LOKESHA, 32. SMT. MANJULA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O LATE VASANTHA, 33. SMT. VASANTHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, 34. SMT. KAVITHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O LATE PUTTARAJU, 35. SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, 36. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O LATE LAKSHMANA, 37. SMT. SOWMYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O SRI. CHANDRA, 38. SMT. CHANNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O SRI. RAJANNA, 39. SMT. SHOBHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, W/O SRI. SURESHA, 40. SMT. SHAILA J H., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O SRI. R SHIVANNA, 41. SMT. DYAVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O SRI. KUMARA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT GUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, MANICHINAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.D.L.JAGDEESH, SR. ADV., FOR SRI.K.PRAMODA K., ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE RAJIV GANDHI GRAMEENA VASATHI NIGAMA NIYAMITHA, NO.1, 2, 3 AND 4, I.T.PARK, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN – 573 201.
5. HASSAN ZILLA PANCHAYATH, HASSAN – 573 201, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
6. THE TAHASILDAR, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN – 573 201.
7. THE TALUKA PANCHAYATH, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN – 573 201. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
8. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANICHINAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 AND R6;
SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R7, R8) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REPORT DATED 16.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VALUER OF ZILLA PANCHAYATH AND THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER OF ZILLA PANCHAYATHS AT ANNEXURE - L DECLARING THAT THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT SO SUBMIT SUCH A REPORT AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners herein are stated to be the allotees of the sites in Guddenahalli village under the Ashraya Scheme have filed the present petition challenging the report dated 16.11.2015 submitted by the Department of Animal Husbandry and the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchyath produced at Annexure-‘L’, and have also sought for an appropriate order to quash the order dated 08.01.2016 at Annexure-‘M’ so also have challenged the communication dated 19.03.2016 at Annexure-‘N’ and the communication dated 02.07.2016 at Annexure-‘P’.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that pursuant to proceedings at an earlier point of time, allotments were made to the petitioners and subsequently the said allotments have been registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, thereby conveying title in favour of the petitioners.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the proceedings at Annexure- ‘E’ and also to the communication at Annexure-‘F’ and ‘G’ and submits that list of beneficiaries are finalized after detailed enquiry and following the procedure as per law. It is further submitted that the registered instruments are executed in favour of the petitioners at Annexure-‘K’. As per the Specific relief Act, 1963 it is not open to the respondent to cancel the allotment accepting the procedure prescribed under law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 submits that the proceedings that are sought to be challenged at Annexure-‘M’,’N’ and ‘P’ are inter departmental communications and are not executable orders. The same stand is taken by the learned counsel appearing for the State. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent – authority further submits that recommendation at Annexure-‘L’ has been referred to the Rajiv Gandhi Vasathi Nigama Niyamitha – respondent No.3 for its remarks and after obtaining the response/opinion of the said corporation, further action will be taken after calling upon the petitioners against whom adverse orders may be passed to show cause why action is not to be taken. The learned Counsel appearing for the State adopts the same stand.
5. It is further submitted that the findings at Annexure- ‘L’ are recommendatory in nature. Looking into the nature of the dispute that is made out and also taking note of the stand of the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5, 7 and 8 as noticed above it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter as follows:
(i) Respondent Nos. 5,7 and 8 if intend to take further action pursuant to Annexure-‘L’ to issue notice to the petitioners and affording an opportunity of personal hearing decide on the course of action.
(ii) It is made clear that in so far as the registered instruments as has already been executed in favour of the petitioners in the event the respondents 5,7 and 8 propose to take action on concluding that the reply/explanations of the petitioners are not satisfactory. Appropriate action in accordance with law before the Civil Court which alone would be competent to set aside registered instruments under the circumstances envisaged under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act.
(iii) In so far as the petitioners against whom no adverse action is contemplated to be initiated as per the report at Annexure-‘L’, necessary action would be taken if so required to execute registered deeds.
6. Needless to state that, if the recommendation at Annexure-‘L’ as regards to the allotees who are found to be eligible for allotment of sites, the appropriate respondent should put a quietus to the litigation. Accordingly, petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD