K DODDAHANUMAIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner is assailing the correctness of the impugned Order dated 15-4-1999 issued by the tahsildar, magadi, 2nd respondent and also the final Order dated 9-10-2000 passed by the deputy commissioner, bangalore, 1st respondent herein. The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist by profession. He inherited the ancestral property bearing sy. No. 33 measuring 2 acres 28 guntas situated at kudlur village, solur hobli, magadi taluk. The said land was dry land. After investing huge sums of money to the tune of rs. 3 lakhs for digging up borewell, installing submersible pumps, having electricity connection, converted the said land into the garden land and also constructed a farmhouse and residing in the farmhouse. He was doing better agriculture raising garden crops like paddy, ragi, banana, tomato and also eucalyptus trees. In the edge of the land, he has fenced the said land by stone pillars with barbed wiring. While doing so, for the benefit and utility of the general public, he has provided a road, towards eastern portion of the said land bearing sy. No. 33 and he has also provided a road, out of his own land, measuring 25 ft. Width and 200 ft. Length commencing from national highway No. 48 linking the same to lingenahalli main road. Further, the petitioner contended that there was a nakashe road marked in the village map which was not used by anybody at any point of time though it is shown in the middle of the said land. He further stated that at the instigation of the persons who are inimically deposing on having revengeful attitude towards the petitioner, a road was proposed in-between national highway No. 48 and lingenahalli. On the said proposal, for the convenience of the general public, the petitioner voluntarily has left 25 ft. Width and 200 ft. Length portion of the property for formation of the road to the east of the land in question. When things stood thus, the 2nd respondent herein at the instance of some villagers inimically disposed towards the petitioner, without initiating any proceedings as provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and rules and even without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, to put forth his grievance and without making spot inspection properly, arbitrarily concluded himself and ordered to evict the petitioner from the alleged nakashe road by Order dated 15-4-1999. Assailing the said order, the petitioner has filed a revision before the deputy commissioner in r. p. No. 2/29/99-2000. The deputy commissioner without giving opportunity to the petitioner basing 011 the pleadings proceeded to pass the impugned Order dated 9-10-2000 confirming the Order passed by the 2nd respondent. Assailing the legality and validity of the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has presented this petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner are two-fold. Firstly, the proceedings initiated by the tahsildar against the petitioner at the instigation of some villagers inimically disposed towards him is one without jurisdiction and the alleged impugned Order passed by the tahsildar is also one without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the act. Secondly, the impugned Order passed by the deputy commissioner dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and confirming the Order passed by the tahsildar is without taking into consideration the defence put forth by the petitioner and without following due procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions of the act. Therefore, he prayed that both the orders are not sustainable in the eye of law and they are liable to be quashed.