Sri S N Kariyappa vs The Executive Officer on 19 February, 2010

%

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 19"' DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2610

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM    

WRIT PETITION N0. 1so34I"Qi:z'Vt 48 years.

 ---- Szht. v.TJfakshanamn1a.

W/fin Basappa.

; I Aged about 45 years.

A '  Sri. Sumangalamma,

W/0 G.M. Kumar.
Aged about 45 years.

L3'?



I0.

I}.

12.

L.)

Sri. Prabhakara,
S / o Jayappa.
Aged about 35 years.

Smt. Gaparikenchamma.
W/0 Hanumanthappa.
Aged about 65 years.

Smt. Lakshrnamma.
W/o Talivara Halappa,
Aged about 60 years.

Smt. Sakamma. V
W/0 Siddappa Silavanta; 
Aged about 45 years.

Sri. KR. Venkatesha,
S/o K.S. Rangappa_,_ 
Aged about 30 years, 

All are  
G_c--}1arhaili.  
I3elligaIAA1"u.d_.L1,_'  4 
Belliganudu Post...  
  

Davaizagere D.ist:_:c:._ ..PE'1'ITICNER

 _ (By s1{i."B'.. Rudra'govqda..Adv.)

   Officer,

Cha nfiagiri Taluk Panchayai.

 Chrarmagiri.

Davanagere District.

'Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing
" "Corporation Limited,

4"" Floor, KHB Complex.

K.G. Road.
Li



this petition calling in question the letter dated 2908"
2006 Annexure»"E" of the 2"" respondent M Rajiv Gandhi

Rural Housing Corporation Limited. enclosing a listof

names and other particulars of probable a1l.o_th'tel:es4'jjo"f

sites.

2. Sri. Rudragoud, learned

petitioners when asked to poi_nt._out to the law goI.rerr$ing --. "

regularisation of unauthorized'~.occupati'on_ of public
property. by illegal squatters-,s_  Section 209
of the Karnatalta'  to contend

that the iminoyab-l..e4'properties in the occupation of the

petitioners'sand_   which taxes are paid to the

 A Panchayath, are'*-re_gtil.arised by the Grama Panchayath

 and CVOI1v_fl1'Ir:E-§.3Td"b_y the Taluk Panchayath.

   counsel for the State. points out to

h_Section  of the Act, to contend that allotment of the

A  property by the Grarna Panchayath or by the

  Tagluk Panchayath must conform to the rules framed by

M



'.J)

the State Government. In terms of the rules. it is the

submission of the learned counsel that appl_ive.a't-joins

ought to be invited from all persons 

allotment of sites and after an en_q.L.1i_ry if;th'e"a'.§;»}§lli'CVantsV_V ll'

are found eligible and qualified, avlilot}rne'ntlllof

be made. In addition, learne£;lv4"'e.ounselV__st1lon1its_:t'hat'°the " V

Panchayath is required to forna"L_:--al"l.ayotit'of sites and
have the same with law. to
avoid haphazard:  growth.
as opposed  and providing
 the need to follow
rule ofl"lalw.l  further submits that

AnneA>;u_re-"lE"'.._:v1etter addressed of the 29" respondent --

l"Hottsingl"'Cor3;)orationl; is not an allotment of sites to the

Aepersonsdwhoses'names are set out in the list enclosed

and"«...tha't'allotment of sites is the jurisdiction of the

Vl"C~.raIna Panchayath proceeded by the report from the

 ._G_Vr'am*'l Sabhas, and thereafter a confirmation by the

Taluk Panchayath, in accordance with the rules.





occupation of public properties cannot but be said to be
illegal and not worthy of acceptance. Thejfefogfe,

petitioners cannot claim equities.

5. Having regard to the submjssion.*()f' Iear'n_ed_u "

counsel for the State that the 2?"  

Nodal Agency, had forwardedthe names and i:)a1vti.cu}3ars --. L'

of the persons identified for allotment of sit.eAs,_and not
that sites are allotted, .""VAn'nexure--"E". the
Challenge to it m:us_t ra3.1;"  -- II:

In petition being without merit,
is accordingly   

   sa/-
 .....  

KS V