SHANTAVVA GANAGAPPA PATIL Vs. SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 to 7 and 11 to 13, Sri.Sriprasad Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.8 and Sri. V. Shivaraj Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9, 10 and 12.

(2.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner, claiming to be a permanent resident of Karadigudi Village of Karadigudi Grama Panchayat, Taluk and District Belagavi. The petitioner had a house in Karadigudi Village of Karadigudi Grama Panchayat. He submitted an application to the Government of Karnataka when it was called for under the Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Scheme as per the Government Order dtd. 14/8/2019, in view of the fact that the entire house of the petitioner collapsed and was demolished due to heavy rain. Respondent No.12, the Panchayat Development Officer, selected the petitioner as the beneficiary in 'C' category. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and the other survey officials verified, inspected and observed the collapsed house of the petitioner and categorized the petitioner under the 'C' category.

(3.) This being the state of affairs, son of the petitioner gave a written application to the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi and the Assistant Commissioner and the Home Minister, requesting them to consider the case of the petitioner as beneficiary in Category 'A' instead of Category 'C', as the entire house of the petitioner had collapsed due to heavy rain. Thereafter, the concerned officers of the respondents, including the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, re-inspected the collapsed house of the petitioner and submitted a letter to respondent No.7, the Tahsildar. Respondent No.11, the Revenue Inspector, in fact submitted a report suggesting the compensation to be granted under 'A' category. However, no action was taken by the Tahsildar or other concerned authorities to grant compensation under 'A' category to the petitioner. Despite several representations and letters, no action is taken by the respondents about granting compensation to the petitioner under 'A' category. Hence the petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not addressing the situation.