B.Y.GANGADHARAPPA Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought for a Writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the representation dtd. 3/6/2020 and direct respondent Nos.5 and 6 to allot alternate sites to the petitioners as resolved earlier.

(2.) The petitioners' claim that the property bearing assessment Nos.79/125 and 80/125 of Bisalehalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur District belonged to their father and uncle. They applied for change of Khatha of the said properties in the year 2011-12. The application was rejected by respondent No.5 which was challenged before the respondent No.4 in appeal No.10/2011-12. The respondent No.4 in terms of order dtd. 29/12/2011, directed the respondent No.5 to allot alternate sites to the petitioners, since a panchayath building was already constructed by the property owned by the petitioners. However, the respondent No.5 did not take any concrete steps to allot the alternate sites. Long thereafter, respondent No.5 passed a resolution on 14/6/2017 to grant alternate sites to the petitioners. Despite that, no steps were taken to allot alternate sites to the petitioners. Later, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed O.S.No.634/2019 for permanent injunction against the petitioners and others in respect of the property bearing assessment Nos.79/125 and 80/125. The suit was however withdrawn later. Subsequent to this, petitioners submitted a representation on 25/11/2019 following which, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 passed a resolution to grant alternate sites to the petitioners. Respondent No.3 considering the plight of the petitioners directed the respondent Nos.4 and 6 to take immediate action to allot the alternative sites to the petitioners. Despite this, no steps were taken which compelled the petitioners to approach the respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent Nos.5 and 6 sought permission to grant alternate sites to the petitioners on 29/1/2020. Even after the aforesaid events, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 did not take any positive steps to grant the alternate sites to the petitioners which perforced the petitioners to file the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that though the issue of allotment of alternate sites was finalized in the year 2011 and the respondent No.4 directed respondent Nos.5 and 6 to allot alternate sites, yet no measures are taken by the respondents. He submits that respondent Nos.5 and 6 having constructed an office in the property of the petitioners was bound to allot the alternate sites. He therefore prays that respondent Nos.5 and 6 be directed to compensate the petitioners for the delay.