1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
WRIT PETITION NO. 18004-18005/2009 "
DATED THIS THE 14"?" DAY OF AUGUST 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA'
BE] WEEN :
1
KATAPPA S / O RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/ AT MADHIHALLI VILLAGE
POST, HALAGADODDI _V
HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRADURGA DIST
DYAVARAPPA s/O. ' _
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A MADHIHALLIATVILLAGEA ' "
ALA.' ":tm13©.tjIj: A
}:.{1R1YURI"}_:ALU.K - . I v .
CH11fRA:wUR.(;Aa1S<: " ' PETITIONERS
(BY 1? DDIIARTAPJIIAYA, ADV.)
KARNATAKA
' ' REE/fENAU.E' 'DEPARTMENT
"'I"--..VI\r113£%1ANzVx_'SoUDHA
BANGALORE _ 0
V 1
'BY ITS SEiRETARY
-:,
2 THE COMMITTEE FOR
REGUIARISATION OF UNAUTHORIZED
OCCUPATION OF INDIA, HIRIYUR TALUK
BY ITS SECRETARY
3 THE TAHSILDAR
HIRIYUR TALUK
HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DIST
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION"
CHITRADURGA 1 I «
[BY SR1: R B SATHYANARAYANA I
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDIa:RvVeA_"RTICI§EiSV 226 I
3: 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND1A,'WITI~I AEPRAYER
TO: QUASH THE IMPUGNED "PASSED"'eT" THE R4.
DT. 9.3.99 VIDE ANN--ii_8; Ti%IE;;OF'F.1CIA~I._ MEMORANDUM
DT. 31.10.00 PASSED BY_"'Ti"iFf R3. 'i*»f1:)E;._ANN-G, & G1
RESPEOTIVELY, ETC., _ ' 12- "
THIS ON FOR PRELIMINARY
.,c:+,ROI;i:I3-, THIS DA_Y;'"THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:V'~--".V-~.__f. . .
I :Q_I2' in E R
4:TI}.E.: pevtifiqriersivare calling in question the Official
I1V1errI0rSIIithfiIi:n_vdated 31.10.2000 which are respectively
Ext and G1 relating to each of the
I . petiti0n'ersL Said Official memorandum, the Tahsildar
rejected the claim of the petitioners for
J
.....
‘H
regularisation of unauthorized occupation and
cultivation,
2. The petitioners claim to be in occupat’io_n~.canvd
cultivation of the lands bearing Sy.No.62?i’;iVp”4Aai–§:fi *
measuring an extent of 4 acres~r»~ea4ch uh’
village, Hiriyur Taiuk, Chitradurga
of their unauthorized cultiidzation, they are have i’
made an application s.ee’i;ingu_regdIarisation as
contemplated under Sedcdtiond of Act. Since their
applications were’jnotiiconseideredgfthey ivere before this
Court: This Court by its
order dated. directed the respondents
therein to consider the application in accordance with
thereto, a list is said to have been
purpose of processing the matter
.v further~–..é11{i’.V’to place the same before the Regularisation
Add V’ j .,Corn_rnittee. $
3. When the matter stood at such a stage, the
Tahsiidar is said to have issued an ,V.(Vif_fi’c_iVai
Memorandum dated 31.10.2000 which are mi15’ugid;e:dt’t_
these petitions stating that the res’pective’app:[iCations ” ”
the petitioners stand rejected
Tahsildar, there was no ‘euitivation for=part,ic’u1ar.V 1
period. Against the__ ‘said the
petitioner preferred to the Assistant
Commissioner.’ has
rejected 999 at Annexure
H indicatingA”ttjr*1Vat appeal is not rnaintainable
since the V.._reguiaris’at’iariacornmittee has not yet taken a
decisio’n,on Vthataspect of the matter and the appeal
dfpiievd against such an Official memorandum
amt hd§dr.tbde:i issued by the Tahsiidar. It is in that
V -V corrtext;:;;.he’fpetitioner isjefore this Court.
‘4
4. The right as claimed by the petitioner need not
be gone into at this stage, since in any event, the
petitioner Was before this Court in an earlier “Writ
Petition and this Court had directed the respo~ntients
therein to consider the applications of the .
accordance with law. Such consideration it
in the manner as contemplated
Karnataka Land Revenue–.:’Rules” ._wh.ereuli1:d’er’ the ” 9
Revenue Inspector 011:’ the the”‘E’.ah’sildar or
the Tahsildar himself the report
with the and thereafter
the co;fnmittee’V.wo_n31d h,Va”v.e to consider the papers placed
before theplcornrnit’tee to the conclusion as to
wheighepit shouldlllbe resolved to grant the land or as to
application is to be rejected.
5;«..lJItsL’.llthe instant case, the very order passed by
‘A ligetitiet-.4_Assistant Commissioner dated 9.3.1999 for the
$
4′
ll
purpose of rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners
would indicate that the said stage has not taken place
and it is in that Context the Assistant Commissionerhas
rejected the appeal on the ground of
When the fact that the regularisation comm,i_t_:tee’ not l
considered and rejected the applicati.(jp1lA1jj.o.i7e
is established by this fact; -the official
dated 31.10.2000 issued in tiie.’,fm.1_nner-eletdorte by the
Tahsildar to reject not sustainable
since the Tahsildar is do so. As
indicated above, the is to place the
matter: beforevj’._’th0elA3’«cotnlfnvittee and it is only after the
committeepltakeslaj’d:ec3.lsi’0h, the Tahsildar would be
entitled to coIr1rt_i_Vlunica.te such decision to the applicant.
View, the Official Memorandum dated
are at Annexures G and G1 cannot
sustained. The saéie are accordingly quashed. The
“r.
third respondent/Tahsiidar is directed to consider the
ease of the petitioner in the light of the directions issued
in Writ Petition Nos.16497–98/1997 to process the
papers and place the same before the
respondent/committee for consideration
with law after the committee is constitujtedvséifithe” it
is not in existence at present. It”-is n:ee’diess_:’top Inention.
that tiii the application is of in ” V
accordance with 1aW,.~ the .s’tatiis Viqtio with regard to
possession shali be rnaint_aincd*.
in terms cifpthe stand disposed
(A s PANNA)
J no.1:
‘ ‘0
‘_’-“1
‘C?
ASBJ W.P. No. 18004-05/09
7.09.2009 ‘
ORDER ON FOR BEING SPOKEN T0
This petition was disposed of by .
14.08.2009. By the said order,mit’__was'”h’eid’_’:thaththeé 99
Tahsiidar was not justified in.’ the
Memorandum dated no * 0′
consideration by theComrr1i–tte”e–_ for Regu1.arisation of
Unauthonrised Occtipants. _ 9 and ‘A . 9 Without such
consideration, jgthe reject the
application’; = A. _v .720
The said –ob’seri}*ation4 in the order was made since
it was _state”d tihatjatearlier point in time, an appeal
.9 9. ijee’i3 preferrevdmto the Assistant Commissioner and
._th’:_~ukixssistant.’Commissioner had indicated that the
appeal maintainable, since the Committee for
K.”4″-..V:”Regu1arisation of Unauthorised Occupants has not yet
.._é’eoI1sit1ered the case f the petitioners. However, the
–
1
error in this Court arriving at such a conclusion on
14.08.2009 is apparent and is noticed in Vi€W of the-cfact
that the order of the Assistant Comrnissioneli_’i’sV:d4ate’dV.
09.03.1999 i.e., at an earlier point thang””‘t_he
Memorandum dated 31. are
Annexures ‘G’ and ‘G1’. _Hence,’W. the 0,0-rder: dlatedlf
14.08.2009 is to be modified’as.:fol1owsE
Insofar as the ‘case “of§§i:?hé”glpetitioners seeking
regularisation xcultivation, the
Tahsildar endorsements dated
31.10.2000 at and ‘G1’ has indicated that
the Land”G;rant’V’CoInrnit_tee has considered the case of
thefietitioners ‘a::icl____has rejected the claim. Pursuant to
‘thVe”O_fficia1 Memorandum dated 31.10.2000 is
issued. Against such Official Memorandum issued, an
lghappeal. is provided to the Assistant Commissioner as
A ‘~:9f’conte_mplated under Rule 1081) (6) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Hence, without deciding on
J
W
E0
merits in this petition, the petitioners are granted liberty
to file an appropriate appeal. Hence the orderlrdiated
14.8.2009 quashing ‘Annexure-G and
and liberty is granted to filewpthe ‘*
‘Annexure-G and G1′. It is needless .. itoi’»rn’enti’o’n’~–th2-ii
until the appeal is f1ledV_'”b_y –5anhd=ul’
appropriate interim orders Assistant
Commissioner, there regard to
possession of needless to
mention the appeal.
the sarn’e”– by the Assistant
Commixssiloner petitioners prosecuting this
petition before’ this ctuuft.
p V-it’1€’lnFtten’ns of tl*1″e’aboVe, the petition stands disposed
uh
Sd;/4
EUDGE