SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2019 passed in application No.2127/2017 whereby the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short) rejected the challenge to the entrustment of enquiry into the hands of the 2nd respondent Lokayukta by the 1st respondent-Government, the instant writ petition is filed.

(2.) The material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are as follows:

(3.) It is pleaded that instead of constructing a house on Site No.86, Smt. Mahananda built a house in the place reserved for a civic amenity i.e., a park. Immediately, the Assistant Executive Engineer of the project, KNNL, caused a notice to Smt. Mahananda in the year 2007. During the pendency of these proceedings, in terms of the notice, it transpires that one Sri Lingaraju, son of Surya Kanth of Chennur village, Chincholi Taluk made an application on 1.4.2013 to the Assistant Executive Engineer, KNNL, Dam Sub-Division, ChimmanChooda, alleging that Smt. Mahananda had constructed a house in an area reserved for civic amenity under the Scheme. In response to the application made, the Assistant Executive Engineer replied that notices were issued on 10.11.2006 to Smt. Mahananda that the construction of the house building in the civic amenity site was illegal and the same had been replied by Smt. Mahananda stating that she had not built any house in the place that was alleged, but the house was built in a farm land which belonged to her and she was ready for a resurvey of the land.