H. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O HOSARAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REPEATED writ petitions at regular intervals or even after lapse of several years for the very relief i.e., issue of a writ of mandamus does not lie, if one writ of mandamus is issued by this Court but is not obeyed by the Respondents against whom the direction is issued.

(2.) FILING of another writ petition after a lapse of 12 years, after the direction / order is issued, is not a remedy or relief and a second writ petition for the very purpose does not lie. It is for this reason, this writ petition which is virtually one complaining that the order/direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ litigation by the very writ Petitioner as per the order dated 11.02.1999, copy produced as Annexure -A to the petition, is not obeyed and it is not open to the Petitioner to come up for the very relief this time also etc.

(3.) MR . R. Om Kumar, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, points out that Petitioner in the first instance has no legal right for grant of regularization of any unauthorized occupation, but even the application for regularzation cannot be considered in respect of the lands which has been earmarked for any specific purpose find the subject land having now been reserved for "Ashraya Scheme", the committee cannot consider the Petitioners grievance any more.