RAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the, Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order bearing No. RD 243 LGB 74 dated 26.2.1976 (Exhibit V) and the Endrosement bearing NO. RD 496 LGB 78 dated 8/15th March, 1979 (Exhibit D) issued by the Government of Karnataka

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of S. Nos. 333 and 334 of Amani Bellandur Khane village. Adjoining the said lands of the petitioner, there is a piece of Government land bearing new S.No. 477 (old S. No. 319) measuring about 5 acres and 20 guntas. His case is that he has encroached on, an extent of 1 acre, and 25 guntas in S. NO. 477 for about 30 years and that on 15.9.1975 he made an application before Government praying for the grant of that extent of land under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). But the Government without considering the said application has granted the entire extent of land, to respondent No, 3 on 26.2.1976 on the basis of an application stated to have been made by him some time earlier or later to his application He has asserted that respondent No. 3 is a, permanent employee of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., (here in after referred to as 'the H.A.L.) at all material times, and even now, is not a political sufferer and was not entitled for grant of land. He has therefore sought for quashing of the impugned, orders and for a mandamus to respondent No. 1 to consider his application and the application made by respondent No. 3 if any in accordance with law.

(3.) In answer to the allegations made by the petitioner respondent Nos. and 2 have, not filed their return. They have also filed a, Memo stating that the original records relating to the grant made by the Government which was directed to be produced by this Court are missing and, therefore they cannot be, produced for the perusal of the Court. At the heading of the case, Shri C. Shivappa, learned High Court Government Pleader has produced a file maintained by the office of the Assistant Commissioner which does not contain any of the relevant papers relating to, the grant of land to respondent NO. 3 or the application, made by the petitioner and has therefore no relevance in deciding the controversy that arises in the case.