N SAMPURNAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vivek Reddy holding brief for Sri K. N. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions and Sri N. K. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent 2 as well as Sri M. H. Ibrahim, learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 4 and Sri s. R. Ramprakash, learned Counsel for the respondent 3.

(2.) THE petitioners in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for the following reliefs. Issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to regularise the occupation of the petitioners in accordance with their respective holdings in lands bearing Sy. Nos. 69 and 58 and 56 as well as to declare that the respondent 3 is a stranger and has no right, title or interest over the properties in Sy. Nos. 56, 58 and 69 of Gavipura village in the wake of the acquisition by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board and for grant of any such other reliefs as Court deems fit.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that, the petitioners are the permanent residents of the area known as Gavipuram formed in Sy. Nos. 56, 58 and 69 of Gavipuram Village. Petitioners further case is that petitioners 1 to 32 and 43 and 44 are residents of Sy. No. 58 while petitioners 33 to 42 are residents of Sy. No. 69 and remaining petitioners 45 to 56 are residents of Sy. No. 56 with their houses built on those plots for several decades and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective holdings/building constructed by them on those plots. The land in Sy. Nos. 58 and 69 belonged to one Gosaimutt but the same was acquired and after acquisition of those Sy. Nos. , it culminated in award being passed and compensation being paid to said Gosaimutt by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board presently known as Bangalore Development Authority. Petitioners have annexed Annexure-A which is the true copy of the certification of the award and vesting of possession in the Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement trust Board, Bangalore. Petitioners have further stated that Sy. No. 56 in which some of the petitioners are residing belongs to the Government. No proof has been furnished in support of the allegation that it belongs to the Government. Petitioners have submitted that petitioners have individually made representations to the Bangalore Development authority seeking regularisation of their possession over the land in Sy. Nos. 56, 58 and 69 of Gavipuram village which according to the petitioners are subject-matter of consideration by the Bangalore Development authority. Petitioners have annexed Annexures-D1 to D2 as the copies of applications. Petitioners case is that petitioners have been residing without hindrance from any person or authority since several decades and the applications for regularisations are pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. Petitioners have further alleged that the respondents without any notice to the petitioners, all of a sudden, in active connivance with the police came to Gavipuram and Kempegowda Nagar with men and material to evict the petitioners from their respective foldings. Petitioners case is that it was only when the petitioners by concerted efforts did resist the authorities realised their futile efforts and left the place with a threat that they would dispossess them on 30th november, 1997. The Bangalore Development Authority itself is sitting pretty on the representations of the petitioners for regularisation and seems to have taken law into its own hands and is trying to compel the petitioners to submission. Petitioners have alleged that their action is illegal and is one without notice and without following the principles of natural justice. Petitioners case is that in the absence of any alternative remedy, petitioners have come to this Court by way of petition under article 226 of the Constitution. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondent 2-authority has come to own these lands after the rights, liabilities and charges of the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board came to be transferred to the Bangalore Development Authority. The City Improvement Trust Board in the 1960's had acquired these properties from the respondent 3-Gosai Mutt. The award and vesting of ownership in the hands of the City Improvement Trust board had occurred in 1960 itself. Subsequent to the vesting, the petitioners had filed application before the City Improvement Trust Board seeking regularisation of their occupation. They have also alleged that the said applications are pending before the 2nd respondent-authority and the authority after sleeping over the applications and without bothering to consider the same have connived with the 3rd respondent and are endeavouring to give back and entrust the entire property that was acquired in 1960 to the latter. Petitioners have claimed themselves to be poor persons leading an existence of extreme privation and miseries. Petitioners have further stated that similar regularisation of unauthorised construction has been made in favour of one Sri Kandappa Reddy in sy. No. 69, one Sri Channaiah in Sy. No. 58 by the 2nd respondent. But the petitioners applications have not been considered yet. So the petitioners have filed these petitions, for consideration of their applications.