MANCHEGOWDA Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be owner of Survey No. 16/12 situate in Deshavara village. He says, beside his land there is kharab which is in his possession and enjoyment. He is aggrieved by the resolution passed by the Bangalore Rural District Zilla Parishad the contents of which is communicated by the letter of the Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad addressed to the Secretary, Dashavara Mandal Panchayat. The letter is at Annexure-A and it is dated 5-6-1989. The contents indicate that the resolution is passed to auction the usufructs of Gundu thope by public auction and if there is any encroachment or encroachments within the boundaries of the gundu thope, steps may be taken to evict occupants or vacate such encroachment. Pursuant to that communication of the Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad, Bangalore Rural District, the Secretary of Dashavara Mandal Panchayat, has by its communication dated 17-6-1989 directed the petitioner not to trespass into the land of the mandal panchayat. It may be said that there is encroachment made by the petitioner as per the notice.

(2.) Therefore, he has approached this Court seeking an order quashing the resolution, (which is not produced) as well as the notice as at Annexure-B dated 17-6-1989. The resolution, the summary of which is found in Annexure-A, relates to sale of usufructs by public auction. This Court has no reason to interfere with the resolution, if the mandal panchayat is intending to realise money by public auction of usufructs of gundu thope. If incidentally direction also is issued to prevent encroachment of the land belonging to the mandal panchayat, it cannot be said to have any reference that any particular individual has encroached except those who have indeed encroached. Therefore, the notice which follows the communication at Annexure-A is no more than asking the persons not to encroach the land or trespass into the land belonging to the mandal panchayat. If the petitioner or others claim title to the same land or they claim that they are in possession of such land in their own rights; those are civil rights which may be agitated in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not decided under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. The petitioner is free to issue suitable reply to the notice as at Annexure-B and take such other steps permissible in law to prevent any attempt on the part of any one to dispossess him from the land which he claims belongs to him and of which he is in lawful possession.