SHASHIKALA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dtd. 28/4/2004 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent No.1 in LND(3)/CR/11/2003-04 and order dtd. 11/6/2015 (Annexure-F) in Appeal No.574 of 2004 on the file of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) The relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to be a resident of Ujire Village, Belthangady Taluk. She had made an application seeking allotment of a house site, pursuant to which, the Thasildar, Belthangadi Taluk, allotted 05 cents of land in Sy. No.214/2A11, Ujire Village. A Hakku Patra was issued in her favour on 2/10/1996. Subsequently, the said allotment was challenged by one Smt. U.M. Savitha before the Respondent No.1 in proceedings bearing S.R. No.25/1997-98, on the ground that the petitioner was a minor at the time of allotment. The said proceedings ended with rejection by respondent No.1 vide order dtd. 25/5/1998 (Annexure-A). It is also stated that, a Public Interest Litigation in WP No. 25198 of 1998 was filed before this, court challenging the allotment made under the said scheme and the said writ petition came to be disposed of by this court on 24/10/2002 (Annexure-B), in which, this Court directed the respondent-authorities to conduct an enquiry to discern any illegality in allotment of sites. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued show-cause notice as per Annexure-C, and pursuant to the same, the petitioner has filed objections as per Annexure-D. The respondent No.1, after considering the material on record, by its order dtd. 28/4/2004 (Annexure-E), held that, the allotment of site made in favour of petitioner situate is within 40 metres from the edge of the road and accordingly, cancelled the allotment. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.574 of 2004 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide order dtd. 11/6/2015 (Annexure-F), dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri. S. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State and Sri. A. Keshav Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 8.