G ASHWATH NAIK Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, questioning the order dated 7-11-2007 [copy at Annexure-E to the writ petition] passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner and the affirming order dated 3-3-2008 [copy at Annexure-F to the writ petition] passed by the first respondent special Deputy Commissioner and seeking for quashing of these two orders by issue of writ of certiorari and for restoration of the order dated 24-11-1997 [copy at Annexure-A to the writ petition] passed by the third respondent-committee for regularization of unauthorized cultivation in government lands on the applications of respondents 4 to 9 amongst others, in all 34 in number, on the premise that the subject land located in Sy No 132, measuring totally an extent of 120 acres in B M Kaval village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk, is a land located within the prohibited distance from the limits of Bangalore city municipal corporation, is by a person who claims to be the joint secretary of Karnataka Banjara Seva Sangha, Saludoddi village, Thathaguni post, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk and who further claims that he is a person belonging to scheduled caste community and is interested in protecting government lands from being grabbed by persons without bona fides, persons who are land grabbers and on the premise that respondents 4 to 9, who have managed to get lands to an extent of 3 acres each in the said survey number, are all such persons; that the Assistant Commissioner, in the first instance for reversing the decision of the committee, has not considered relevant records and more so for the reason that the matter which had been heard and reserved for orders by an erstwhile incumbent in office as on 27-2-2006 has been pronounced and the appeal allowed by the successor in office as per the order dated 7-11-2007 and in between the one who heard and reserved the matter for pronouncement of orders and one who has passed the order, a couple of Assistant Commissioners having occupied the post etc. The affirming order of the special Deputy Commissioner in the appeal by some of the applicants before the committee, whose applications had been rejected on the premise that they are not cultivating the land, also suffers from the very vice of subject land being within the prohibited distance from the Bangalore city municipal corporation limits and the affirming order which was passed without application of mind and without a proper hearing, is also liable to be quashed.

(2.) This writ petition had been admitted and notice issued to the respondents. Respondents 1 to 3 and 10 are represented by Sri E S Indiresh, learned government pleader and respondents 4 to 9 are represented by Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, advocate.

(3.) I have heard Sri A S Mahesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.