High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri S Muniyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri S Muniyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 October, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 12'?" DAY OF" OCTOBER 2009
BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA 

WRIT PETITION NO. 9340/2008 (E{LR:%R.ES)'~ A I D'

BETWEEN:

SRI. S MUNIYAPPA S/O SWATHAPPA " _

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS   

R/AT YALLUR VILLAGE ' 
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI

DEVANAHALLITALUK    --.    
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT  . " '@._PETITiONER

{BY SRI. T N VISWANATHA,;'_AID§f.V}   A A

I THE STATE_OF'E{ARNA'TAf(A
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
, VIDHANA SOUDHA
.»  DR. 8. R. AM,I::3EDKAR ROAD

 'BANGALORE W 560 001

      COMMISSIONER

' -_'BAI'-I_GAlL_ORE RURAL DISTRICT
 SHVISSHWARAIAH TOWER
 DR. BJR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGAIDRE -- 560 001

L

,4»
'l



3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB--DIVISION
VISHVESHVVARAIAH TOWER
DR. 133 R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE -- 560 00}

4 THE REGULARISATION OF UNAUTIIORISED,  '=- 
OCCUPATION OF LAND COMMITTEE  ,0 _  '
BY ITS SECRETARY/TAHS1LDAR.._  H I
DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVAl\IAHALLI' "   '

5 SRI. G KANJANAPPA , _

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 

S /O G KEMPANNA   I

RESIDINC AT YALLYUR VILLAGE
CIIANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI   _ 

DEVANAHALLI TALUK. * I  j.    _
BANGALORE DISTRICT  A  ';;;.j'RE:SPONDENTS

(BY SRILK  ,ADV;"'EOR R5)
SR1. 'RvKUE'L4\R"H-CGPVAFOR RM)

THIS '.'VRITP.E'fTTiQN...I_S--FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OP INDIA. WITH A PRAYER
T0: QUASII INTI-IE 3'MP.U"GNED ORDERD DT. 26.05.2008
PASSED ON  F,ILI':2" OF THE LEARNED DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,

 BA§IC}.ALORE, VIDE...._ANx-L AND THE IMPUCNED ORDER

 DT. 24.06.2005 PASSED ON THE FILE OF' THE LEARNED

 fi.SS1S1ANT:"vI. COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB~
~DII;ISION:;v..VID.EANX--K.

  WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

  '-HEARINS-; THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

I

'-5



placed before the Regularisation Committee and the

grant was made on 7.7.2003. Along with the petitiorler,

two other persons were also granted ce1tainA...e>«:_tei_1ts of.'

land in the very same survey number vi_d__eE'o.rder'~dated .0 

7.7.2003. Thereafter, the 

issued in favour of the petitioner.'; The 50$?-tA1*esponije.r1t 

herein subsequently in   have
questioned the grant.gfig;de the Vbdetttioner by
filing an appea1__before,_  in
N0.LND   Assistant
Commissiot1Ve.r::.44h;as    made in favour of
the   vvas therefore before the
DeputyAtcvorrrmissiorieré':irt"1\i.o.LND.RA 5/2005-06. The

Deptggty Comrnlissioner has aflirmed the order passed by

 theAssdistatit-._Commissioner and as such the petitioner

  aggrieved by the said orders.

gt

,
'v



4. While assailing the said orders, it is contended

that firstly, the appeal filed before the Assistant

Commissioner was hopelessly barred by 

aspect of the matter has not been advertled  ilt .A

further contended that in any e'-»;.IJen»tl_,:"1}--#§._5t-:r1" 

did not have locus--standi to questio_n'~-the grant 

was neither an applicant    other
right in respect of '   is Hllurther the
contention of the petitioner   matter was
considered  l_R€Vg1,1la,r'isalloh'lcointnittee, the sketch
and the   been noticed and a
mahazéar uras also placed before the
cornrnitteel  said records. the committee

haséggranted "*t.hl_elregularisation. In this regard, as

VZagainsts"l:the'«.._Vsaid contention, before the Assistant

 was contended that the land in

question 'Was being utilised by the 5'~'h respondent as

itvvwas also contended that it is a forest land. The

l

0

beyond the lands granted to the petitioner and therefore

the land in question was being used as a road. Even on

this aspect of the matter, the Assistant

has not made detailed consideration to___’in.dicAate the _ 2

location of the land to come to the jvsagidilgcionehgslion,’

However, ultimately, the Assistant C’.ommiVssioner:’;has

come to the conclusion thatlth:e1se_lands– in’ijue’stion are
part of the forest putforth
by the petitioner has covnslildpelfation, but has
been decided: ground, even
though such contention
by initiLatinl.gst;gkrnotuliptoceedings. Therefore, even on
that aspect of’ the order of the Assistant

Corntnissioner’ does not indicate proper consideration.

._ noticed this aspect of the matter even

V -V regaglrdto whether the land allotted to the petitioner

uavvithin the forest which was indicated in Sy.No.157

at

nu”

oi