High Court Karnataka High Court

K S Shesha Prasad vs The Deputy Commissioner & … on 9 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
K S Shesha Prasad vs The Deputy Commissioner & … on 9 November, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE»

DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2r:>Ec";é,:AE'L 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.P.D.DINAKAR}3N,  X 7

Am
THE HON'BLE MR.:msTf::cE MAO?-'QM S.igfAf\iTAE§.JA6éUDAR
WRIT PETITION :§o.1*8ooTri'22ob;L{EME~:2Es-PIL)

BETWEEN:

1.  'V    
S/o.K.Shamam_1a " '
Agedvnifivyears 

I3hr:1mar_ "1b_a Extexxsicn
Chamaraj an agai -~ T0"s.>vn;--._ " --- '

2. S.Suresh__' %
Major "
}?:'fEsident _ V
B-rah-maria Yuva Védike

~  ' ' Sujatha Saw Mill
 V  E2.0a_d_'_.
2 A Clrxaxrxalfajaggagar Town

H 3. £i'.s.EénEé'sh

s/o.1a1.e H.S.Subba Rae

 'A .Aged '29 years
-- _ . _Bf_ahmir1 Street, Haradanahaiiy
 Chamarajanagar Taluk 63: Dist.



I
i\J
I

4. H.1V;E.Lakshminarayana

(By _Sri   T' V '
AND: ' V A A

1.

S/olate Mannar

H.V. Krishna Murthy

Aged 49 years

Brahrnin Street, Haradanahally
Chamarajanagar Taluk 8: Dist.
I-I.R.Venkatachalaiah 
S/0.1ate Rangappa

Aged 65 years

Brahrnin Street, Haradanahally
Chamarajanagar Taluk 8: Dist."

H.B.Shanth.a Murthy  . 

S/o.1ate H.S.Bheema .Rao E

Brahrnin Street " 'A = '

Haradanahally  H  V _ V   ._ 
Chamarajangar' T_a1u1<:'&  . '   PHITIONERS

The E)<=:p:L1'£,y C'emm'issi'oner. '
And District Ma'g:$:ra:e_  
Chamarajan agar Dist»rVi'é't.
Chamarajan2iga;'v--. ' ' "

 T8§1s:i_1darA  ' ..... .. v

' VtCha.1na.r;aLj'éi13.:agar Taluk
 Cha1ma_ra_i anagar

Piittafineii Nfiika

_S;fo.B_a1iep'ukkanna Ranga Naika

Majar 

 .. R/0.1%-aradanahally Village
 V Chamarajanagar Taluk 8: District



4. C.B.Sugreeva
Major
S/o.late Balakrishna Raju
Devanga 3rd Street
Chamaraj anagar Town--57 1 3 I 3

5. Raghava, major
S/o.late Balakrishna Raju   
Byadaxnudlu Village : '
Haradanahally Hobli
Chamarajanagar Taluk 8: Dist.

6. Jamee1Ahrned. major
S / o.1\/Iohammed Hameed
R/ollaradanahally .   . *  '   
Chamaraj anagar Taluk AD--_ist;_ ' V : :~ RESPONDEZNTS

(BY S1'iB.VeeraPDa, AG1}.~f0%.t.Ri '¢1rA}.?/2    
Sri N.Y.Gum'prakasl1, A.d_vocate.'fQrVV R3'

R4 &R6g's:eyve+d"  , g   _
R5--held'sufficieI1t} b      

"lThIs_wr1t' pet1t1on'is"f11ed. under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Coristitution lof'"ind»ia,'2'rpraying to direct R1 & R2 to hold
and completerthe*en'quir'y"arid further to remove the unlawful
obstructionaand en_.c1'o_ac:hment Immediately and to remove
public ~m,1isance Caused by R3 to R6 hereln, etc.

 'writ ;H3et'i'ti'oVn coming on for hearing, this day

  SIEANTANAGOUDAR, J., delivered the following-

JUDGMENT

lpublic interest litigation is filed for a direction

to: respondents 1 and 2 to remove unlawful obstruction

/W3

and encroachment and to remove public nuisance

caused by respondents herein, after holding

The petitioners have also sought for ~

respondents 3 to 6 from causing .an},r_laWful’v”obst.ruc4tio1’2,_ ll’

and/ or public nuisance in

including unlawful crem_atioIlr0If burial it as ” it

the case may be.

2. According Sy.No.8 of
Bandigere j1__(rn.%Qj¢}€ Hobli. and
measuring 5 acres
12 gun_tas_ dmeant for Grave Yard since

time immemorial _.”fl*i’he”.»isaid Grave Yard is being used

by niembersof Brahmin Community of 5 Villages,

»n:a;rr_1VeiyV, *A.,gBasavapura, Venkataiahana Chatra,

V V S Ankanashettypura Village and

There is no other place available for

A C_*p:eri’orI1iai’1ce of the said religious obsequies ceremonies

‘ of the community in the said villages. A bore well is

to

also dug in the said property to provide water for

performing the obsequies ceremonies on the

3. Respondents are the owners

adjoining the said Sy.No.8

According to the petitioners,’ respondents 3:..i;o’:6

encroaching Sy.No.8 though’V’Vit»V.:._i’s rrreant for
Grave Yard; that Hhandedly
and illegally sought a gate to
obstruct diet. 4′ ‘~./grave Yard. The
petitioners jurisdictional police
and “dead bodies had to be

crernatedzp Cvopiesilpofcomplaints are produced at

Anrierrures-Oi.’ 8., dated 20.7.1998 and 12.8.1998

‘reenectiv.el,.”~–. So also re resentations as er

1’ and U, dated 20.7.1998, 12.8.1998 and

respectively are filed by the petitioners before

A lthe~._concerned authorities. Ultimately, the second

responderit appointed a Surveyor to make spot survey

be

A5,-

and to report. The copy of the survey sketch is
produced at Annexure–V. In spite of the complaints and
the representations, no action is taken. Hence,

petition is filed.

4. Having regard to the material record, is, it

clear that the grievance of the peatitionetrs

that the representations/ conipiaintsvh are not considered ‘V

by the concerned authoritieseffectively. Itfthey land in
question is reserved as a Grave” tiiié ‘Syame will have

to be protected’so’_.’– ‘.3-. if they have no

right, title -‘the property in question,

cannot tsvhaii not eiicroach upon the property in

question’. The’–Grays Yard has to be maintained for

‘p,1ii;~1ic Therefore, the 181 respondent-Deputy

Coriiniissiojner shall consider the representations filed

by petitioners and initiate action in accordance with

A ‘~:df”1ai3v”against the concerned. Hence, the following order is

n:;.ade:-

f a»’

/
i

First respondent–Deputy Commissioner is di-rested

to consider the representations filed by the

and initiate action against erring peop1ei_r1″”accordaneei_

with law as expeditiously, but riot

limit of three months from the of reeeipt

order. It is also open for the_V’.%petitio’IrerVs’Vto ‘file fresh
representations, if they:.’;fi5=o. e_hoose: ._ _’ » ‘ ” « _ _

Writ petirioriis aVeeordingly.


/"E
5»«»..,» x

 ....     "  
1 i i   Chief Iustice

Sd/-
KFDGE

 Vi  inclexzz /No
~ Wehéfiostz Yes/No
 fck,/.=-