.1.
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST. 20.
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. J. s. CH_§E;F}}T£JS'{5:iCE Q'
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUST_I€.E3 ULA'.::C'3R._i:'3vI_.1,Ij'R %
WP. No.379_1f7 0I~f20'"C>9 :sM--R£:s-PHIL)?
BETWEEN:
Zahiruddin s %
S/0 Fattae Mbh.':mime3dsab" =
Aged 76 yeal-'e. ' %
Occupation; Ag'r'1(:u1furés*~& «_
S0cia1.»\rVorKe"1'
R/0 SalagarxB:31saj:1tpu;*"~«.__ _ '
Chincholi Taluk _ _
Gulbarg-c1_Distr£'ct _ " " ...PE'I'IT ION ER
(By4S'ri.,M. & Sri. Amit De-shpande.
7 'I ' ..... ..
I. __TVhe vStefޤ:As:(;)f Karnataka
By its Secretary
Rev_e1T3ue Department
" :\_/idldana Soudha
r __A"mbedkar Beedi
Bangalore-- 1
VV The Deputy Commissioner
Gulbarga
Gulbarga District
3. The Tahsildar
Chincholi
Chincholi Taluk
Gulbarga District
4». The Land Tribunai
By its Chairman
Chinchoii
Chincholi Talu k
Gulbarga District
5. Sri. Prabhushetty ._
S / 0 Hanigirirao Malipati}
Since deceased by his L.R:.... '
Smt. Shashikaia KQfi1.Pr:_ibhuishetty.
Malipatil, Age: 59 ye'ars~ * _ Q' _
Occ: Househoid andV_a'grie'v'__t1;1re"~~. _
R/0 Sa1agar.:Basan_tap'1"n1 _ K V V
ChiHChO1i33.'81:§_i»kV *
Gulbarga ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri." I{ai--'eddy,t Afliffor R1 to R4)
(R-5 iS;"Sei'ifed]:
_This"Nrit.i?etiti_ori~--"is filed under Articles 226 and
22"7_§o'fut.he C'on_stitut:ion of India praying to quash the
irripiigzied».Aorder'"~dated 20.1.1979 vide Annexure--~E
._ .pa.sscd ~_b.y7-._the Land Tribunal Chinchoii District:
GVuI'bai'§§._ai ~a"nd"§mpugr1ed endorsement dated 26.5.2007
"wide §}\J'1Vi'l"_Ef_1'(__1.,l'1':;.€3'-'VG issued by R3.
Thiis W.P. coming on for Preiiminary Hearing this
it Gaye,' Manjula. Cheliur J., passed the following:
. 3 .
O R D E R
This public interest litigation is filed with-___the
following prayers:
“i) To issue writ of mandamus directing,’ H
respondents to enquires»whe.ther”r-lIsy.V”
No.77 measuring 4 acres
public property am-i__. whether there
public road and pul:loli:::pathwaj,r
ii) Issue a _of_V_ directing
the authority ‘Aef1_ilquiry and
subrnit:,,:rg;»por§f existing fact
and -yill~ag;e_rsV tolluse the said
land and also
a pu’bl.iC._land._ .
iii] tissueiaxiylfother writ or order or
‘ ” i_direction”asV’this Hon’ble Court deems fit
A’ in the circunistances of the case In the
of justice and equity.”
V llfiiclcording to the petitioner, the land in Sy.
No.77 -nieasuring 4 acres 6 guritas of Salagar Basantpur
it yil-lauge in Chincholi taluk, Gulbarga district was known
V» Gosai Hittal land and also as Gavi kolla. According
to him. the 5″‘ respondent by name Prabhushetty
. 4 .
husband of Smt. Shashikala was a Member of the Land
Tribunal, Chinehoii and he was a very influential person
in the said village. By coliuding with
officials. entries in the record or rights ‘Caxmer’..to di:»ef V’
mutated in his name as a tenantvin respeet~:’of,the above”.
said land. Said Prabhushetty never .oulti\ia.t:ion”–..L
of the said land which The
occupancy rights by
the Land Tribunal is averrnents.
he has that the concerned V considered the
representaltioiixg . __thej Vlnletitioner. Therefore, he
has app’iroached*~.this’
.’3,.r_ Ferusal ‘ofrecords, especially Annexure E dated
endorsement dated 25.5.2007 at
ifivindicates that occupancy right was sought
again’st__done Mr. Narjangiri s/ o Baldeva Giri pertaining
No.77 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas. it is noted in
proceedings that as the applicant was one of the
Members of the Tribunal. he did not participate in the
.5.
proceedings and the records before the Tribunal
indicate that he was in cultivation of the iandsiiace
many years. The landlord and the tenant were”:a’bsjent,
T herefore. occupancy rights were granted. it
4. Annexure–G is the endorsemcntir».give’n
Tahsildar, Chincholi, discIos’i’ng the nature’
Sy. No.77 of Salagar rneasdri.nVgv.4’iacres’ gtinytas. The
endorsement was request for
cancellation ‘V favour of
Prabhush¢§:tt_ff._«<._ the fact that the
land in' to Prabhushetty
by early as in the year 1979,
rejected the 'reqi__1es_s informing the present petitioner
thvat'i~h;etAV:}ias no"'poii..er to cancel the grant of occupancy
right_s'.'-_;'Ap'pa1'enily. the present petitioner is also from
ti1e"hsarneV'Vlizi1lage from which Prabhushetty hails and so
also *~ place where the property in question is
Sitn'ated. The documents produced by the petitioner
along with the petition at Annexures A & 13 indicate one
Narjalngiri was the pattadar of the land and
. 6 .
Prabhushetty was in possession and enjoyment of the
land right from 1968 onwards. Subsequent to the death
of Prabhushetty his wife Shashikala is in
and enjoyment of the said land.
5. Except the persistent alvlega:titensA’of ‘p’r:es_ent_iA
petitioner to different authorities and aiso ‘t.hC:«–.p;Vjesent
writ petition, there is no iotVa._.oif~vevidenee”invdieaiting Sy.
No.7? in question Gosaj hittal —
a C}overnrnent4_:la,:_’id. by way of
ainendment; the petitioner
was forlav {ii the respondents
to matte’ Sy. No.7? in question was
a public Vxpr..operty._ anidsirhether there was public road
an.d’:”:~pt1.hlie patihw-ay* in it. if at all there is a public
road in the said land and even if the
granted to late Prabhushetty by issuing
occupancy rights. the right of easement can be sought
fer” the persons who are affected by any obstruction
yveaused on this road, if any, by the owners of the
property. Except one single person, no other person is
. 7 .
complaining of such obstruction of the road or pathway.
Even otherwise, there is no material establishingthe
existence of either pathway or a proper road -usrgxxici
land.
6. if it is for declaration Of;’!:aS_:c”lo1″_4EI1;LE.1_I’y jfightiloee-..th*i;~:sf
is not the forum where such _pr.ayer A(.~~ouis:1 be eolasiygieired. -. ”
If it is a public road, ‘_(_:1.efinit:e1yVijparionayatniyvofild come
to the rescue of the viewed from
any angle, e;s’ f’orthcoming to
entertain ‘jinyiolyjng::p1’1bneV–interest.
1Accord’ingly_.V3’the«’petition is dismissed.
Sd/’~ I
Chief Ilustwe
Sd/-.
Judge
as sak