V 2;:
1 WP35070.08
115 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
THE Horrnw MR. JUSTICE n.v. sHYLmNI=3§}i'Ar€13;%a}a:2a_:" _
DATED THIS THE 161%! DAY 01:' DECEMBER, 2008,
BEFORE:
Wrii Petition No.150'?'0 (#2005 KV:;>x~i;;_ ' "
BETWEEP3:
SEE RAMA VIWAVARDHAKA
BY {TS PRESIDENT '
1:: R DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS _
KGNDETHIMMANA§£_&LLi VILI._.A{3E$
?AVAGA£)A TALUKV ' '_ " ' . L
TUMKUR DIS'I'RECT s
sA:\iA&;;;~1.}x. 'T A' '
PETETIONER'
[By Sri. N DVc.w.'£:;a.ciasVs--,A&&3r. for
M ,'« .~;,_ Advmjatcs, adv. ,]
ma; +.1;::.E;15::_.IM'_91'*'*'{; iaommssfionaa
-'?::;M:<Um:;;_sTE1C:r.'
'§'u.M1<;--_ua, " = *
THEé.e<..sS{%sTA'NT'ticsvi§;z1Véé£oE:NR
MADHEJGIRI sue EJIVISION
;i\%'1'1?;E3.HUG1§?{ '' '
V' é:%.R:."r; D':4AL1PA'i'}fi 'RAG
3 3 'V 8;.'
'E_..A"FE"K_ HANUMANTHARAO
V' EKEE»-M<53\@_R;.. RESIDENT OF'
' iiON«{3ETi{£MMANAHALLI VILLAGE
VPAVAGPJDA TALUK,
""AR'rMEm
0'}
M S BUILDENC} ANNEXE
DR AMBEDKAR VEEZDHI
BANGALORE 560 001
SR1 S R' UMASHANKAR, I A S
9/0 CHIEF' SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF' KA§NA'f'AKPs,
2 WP1:'50'?0.08
VIDHANA SOUEJHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 C01 RESPGTQDE-NTS
{By Sri. H K Basavaraj, I-{C-GP for R1, R2, R4..&_'}§§:;'.' ~
Sari. T Seshagiri R30, Adv, for C] R3}-' '
THES PETETZCBN IS P'IL£D UNDER ARTICLES'f3'i26. AND.2'27 OF"
THE COI\¥S'I'ITIJ'i'IC}N OF ENDIA, PRA;YiNG"'«I'Q7,SET_ AFSIDEWTHVE
ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY CC[MMiSS§=ONER,. V"1'-'LI1'\i'§I9'\"L._',YR*A;;iI\'1'
PROCEEDINGS DT. 23.6.2008 AS PER AEJVNEXURE-NI..Ai'EEI) «£§'1'C§;~,_.
mxs PETITION COMING i:;N_ "'i»>g3R i3RE_L1Mv;NvARaf"'HEA§:NG;'V'
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FQ.LLOWING:.~ * -- -' V
The pregem; }3_\ge=""~1).i'11;t'(,j}.§éa.s<i-.1' of certain
agI'icult1:£ra.i was an erstwhile
village offic-3. is this caurt, time and
again ' 3:1 the t.hiI*d round Of writ
litigatior} the su{;§€$Ct~"Lmatter of the writ petition is an
A.;3rdeé:1_:5'~ U :23;5...r2008 passed by the Deputy
'lcopy at Annexure-M] rejecting the
re'131i_é:¥*.t:nt£itié§_n:/applicatiori that had been filed by the writ
- ;3etitioi1¢1§1~to contend that 31"'! respondent one B: Dhalipathi
V’ of iata K Hanmnantharao was mat entitied to
_;f¢=:iteive compassionate pension as a former hoider of a
village office: in terms of earlier order dated ‘2.§.5.1999
[copy at Arme:smre~E] far the reason that this order itssif
#/
3 WP150′?0.08
was taintecé by fraud played by the pereon claiming
pension; tllat; the person was never 2: Viliage
that his claim for re~«@’ar1t of the
meastuéng 4 acres 1? gtmtas in of V
Pavagada Taitlk of Tu111.kur 39%/s_£:ri”cA1:f:)§:1§’ –ti1e L»
was 8. village offieer helder by-”
the Tahsiidar; that it b§%’*t1?:§: District
Judge in an appeal L1I1g1er the Karnataka
‘Jillage ‘the Act’]; that
a writ petifiex} pension agai11st
such e;’vrVie:’_! _b:: e1VisI1zisse<:1 by this court in
terms of £.iae4'order«d§1teei' "'-J':L;3:'.1997 passed in WP No.28{) 18
V of {eepf érr.V_V_A:;;ne§:11re»Q] reported in ILR 199?' KAR
825V&& in_v:'e1:?;eVVj4A'1I1a.ti:e:' of 'K BHALIPATHI mo Vs. szzee
SANGHA 85 0123'; that it was
V -V fuztfier fifixiiied by the divisien Bench in writ appeal
" 199?'; that if the position that the eiaimant
seeléiiig pensien was not a vfiiage office holder had been
""V. eeI1e1L1ciecl, it was flO 6 open to the same person to
come back in the second romsad through an application
9%.
4 W’P1;:307().{)8
Lmder S€C{iOZ£’1 9 of the Act: to claim such position; :2-133; the
order is bad etc… V
‘2. While this order was subject matter
N0.64?5 of 2000 before this coU3’f{ ‘t1*;e_
came to be diSf)GSf?:d of by
flared 23.8.2001 [copy at c:al;’:::1V,V
that the Government ‘ééithéytér the Writ.
petitianer or the 1.!.f1:i:Ifi;€’r~».:VI_”%;._f\’§f«}C)0Ii(i€:I1t therein
arid there bei.z_:¢g”ffar(§’ scrape Liitir iiaréritierézxéce in the matter of
granting rpe:1VSion”‘:§3f:’.fa1:V>o’ur 0f”the° third respondent in the
a¥:)sez1ce_ (if Cli1it:~hi11g~ ,.rI1?;1i€:_riéL1 having not been placed
before ‘then “‘c.;<ju1'tV t§itAh,.é'r'~.-by the writ petitioner or by the
r§3:3:.pc}I1(i(3I§1fI;;"*-~–E;'%1€i pt-ztitioner can represent to the
L__§V%:~:;:$_:;;3'1':}-*:'*€}€)fimVi;s,;si0r1er to examinczt the aspect of 1:113 third
résggrindéxirr: P-_.h;§»1vi1";g playeé fraud to get tbs benefit 01"
*-«._ »pez1si<_}'1i§__ 1~a:1<:l that can be examined and with that
jV."r;'Gs;<:r9'a.ti0r1 the writ: pfitifififi came to be dismissed.
VA Further writ a'pp<5:a1 against this order in Writ appeal
V
510.7897 at' 2001 A dismissed on 1.3.2002 with the
5 WP15070.08
obgervation that the apprehensien of the appeiiajratpj the
present Writ petitioner was uncafled for to
said pmceedings can affect the "
procéedizigs and the other
of the earlier re-ga11t procecdiiiggwiiicih
independently eta, Whether ori
otherwise, it is 3 matt.ef:4_that exaniiiieii on such
cievel0pmez1t$ thgt hafs__ present order
Dassed by Almexure-M
dated ;23.6.2’€€)§Z!E§.4._i;V. ‘ ‘H
4, This {::1f_{ier_ 1f10zV'{1.1ii:i.StiOn€d before this court on
various gro1;”1~:(iS’. ‘V
on behaif of the petitioner Sri. N
D§;:vlfi’3dia:$é;’_~_3¢ai;:1éd senior counse} would contend that the
.f)epu’i3? fifirmifiriissioner has passsrd the order in total
” ‘”};ti,0Eaii_§)n hf the pxninciples of natural justice; mat the
-..ii’m2aJj;€:fAwas penciing before the Deputy Commissioner for a
” long time that had bean reserved for passing orciers
about {W0 years eariifir; that the S1}CC€SSOI’ iilepuxy
a/i
6 WP15{)7Q.O8
Commissioner has passed the order without givirtg an
opportunity ete..; that the Deputy Commissioner
failed to notice in the wake of earlier ~
there is no scope for passing an ortierto K V’
of pt3I}SiOI1 to the petitioner in
25.5.1999 which had come”Vx§*tV..pe
{Deputy Commissioner’, ‘~fg1voi1.r’ of third
respondent; that the gejoeeedings of the
Deputy Com1ni$eioo.er iuqtiestioti of the
third resporrdezit.iie;{%i3iig’:.;31e;3?e€i”V_frond has not at all been
examined b:sa’AAti*ze..Liep1;:ty”__Com,missioner which was the
only aspect, wlrieh W215; ‘”‘re£:jnt1ire{1 to be looked into and
V therefore the orelers ~{3-.ufi’ers and the matter warrants
_ .ree]poI’1clent has entered caveat. through Sri. T
V _Sesh}agiri-jléaoi learned eounsei.
A. ,r_.Su3:)tr1ission of Sri. Seehagiri Rae, learner} eourisel for
.’_1~th7i.t9d’ respondent by pointing out to the earlier oréers and
~ ..::J’Li'{:lgII1€1′}tS passed by this court in writ petitions and writ
$/
7 WP150′?0.08
agpeals is that the apprehension of the preserit writ
petitioner is totafly uncalled for; that the the
Ilresent order affecting the Ilroceedings ttyhieit
an end under section 3 of the {tot for i 7
miseoneeived; that in fact the ‘third.res.;sondent:’i1as
the matter to the Supre;ne””e<:€:o3Jrt;V.
pending before the ageinstythe order
passed by the ditrision that leave has
been gented 'jnottttiivipendmg before the
Supreme it nnnexure-R8 to the
statem.ent__V on behalf of the third
resp0nden_t4'–~ is numbered as CC No.80?-4
of such orders passed by the
in Conirnissioner cannot have any bearing on the
before the Supreme Court which is
V . one"'arising' out of proceedings under section 3 of the Act;
it it ' _thei*efore there is no need for this court to examine
— inatter in this writ petition and particularly as any
” ‘interference at this stage in respect of the order While
could aifect the interest of the third respondent for getting
8 WP13070.08
pension, it will not in any Way affect the interest of the
petitioner in so far as re-gent of the land is eone’eri’2ed;
that therefore the matter need not be examizieti-.9 _
instance of the petitioner.
3. Sri. H K Basavaraj, learneii
appearing for statutory authoritiesia for wheegi his ;
directed submits that the Deputy
Commissioner may be that there is
notllilig further for the to submit in
the light,» by this Court and as
has beetireiéed’ counsel for the parties.
9. Whiie ‘it. is a matter which has attaiiied
” the Vidivieion Bench of this court in respect of
fact ‘vfzhetiier the third respondent was an
erstwhile office hoider or otherwise cannot be re»
i”‘~.-»_exami:r1ec1 by the Deputy Commissioner in a second or
whether fer the purpese of re-grant or for the
of granfizig pension, I do not find it neither
«feasible nor necessary to examine such questions as to
9 W’P15()7{}.{}8
whether the order passed by the Deputy Coznniissioner
was one on a proper application of mind or
proper opportunity to the petitioner or after
relevant issue as had been observvedw by V i
to find out as to whethéfe’
pension in the year 1999 in of V.the_V_tf1i,ri:i
was tainted by the fraud
for the simple reasn__ WithiIl the
domain of A to examine as to
whether frangi bringing about certain
orders nor Veourt in a petition under
Article 2927i4’o§’ (1’eon4s’tit’ution of indie to go into such 4
V questions. of the being in existence or otherwise. I
find” it i,~:;_ not necessary also for the reason that Sri.
iearned counsel for third respondent very
–V stitinaitted that the order is one confining to the
* Eepexisionary benefits that the third respondent gets and not
one naving any bearing in reegrant proceedings under
section 3 of the Act; that it is not sought to be used to
32/
10 WP150′?0.08
bolster the ease of the third respondent in any.-o’t11er
proceedings inciuding pending preceedings ete.,.W T *
10. While the question as tow’ wheti-aer–.. 2
respondent is entitled for re«-grant’».:on::’the oreiraisei he’
was erstwhile viliage ofiice “~%1zo1der. xwhiciji .?been–,td’
concluded by the division subject
matter before the Suprexnieh further is $0
be done in the ggmfxg it efjoeL§{¢set:i£3§:d it feasible to
examine tioinmissioner being
vitiatedidtie respondent having
played nlatter to be examined by the
civil codrt notVbydAarijr~–‘§’aut13ofities.
open to the petitioner to avail of other
rernedies ‘are available to get over the impugned
j order} it “is not necessary to examine such aspects fumher.
is also open to the third respondent to take up
sneh defence in the pending appeal before the Supreme
” Court. It is not a matter which requires further
examination in writ j1}.I’iSdiCti(}I1 by this court.
‘Q/’
1 1 WP15(}’?0.(}8
13. Therefcre the Writ petition is dispossd of wimp the
above observations.
Sd/’:j
ud@¢
A11]-