Jayamma vs The Chief Secretary
2022 Latest Caselaw 1768 Kant

                              1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

         WRIT PETITION NO.4605 OF 2021(GM - RES)

BETWEEN:
1.     JAYAMMA,
       W/O CHELUVE GOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

2.     C. B. CHELUVE GOWDA,
       S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

       BOTH ARE R/AT
       CHINAKURALI VILLAGE,
       CHINAKURALI HOBLI,
       PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 424.
                                           ...PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
       STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
       VIDHAN SOUDHA,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       MANDYA DISTRICT,
       MANDYA - 571 404.

3.     THE TAHSILDHAR,
       PANDAVAPURA,
       PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 424.

4.     C.S.VISHWANATHA,
       S/O C.N.SRINVASSE GOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
                                 2

      CHINAKURALI VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
      PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 424.

                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 - R3;
    SRI.D.S.MANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 1.7.2019 AND 23.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-
D - D3 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioners is as to non-

consideration of their representations collectively produced at

Annexures-D to D3 wherein, a request is made for the

conducting spot inspection of subject property and

submission of report in terms of the direction of Karnataka

Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court.

2. Learned AGA appearing for the respondents

opposes the petition contending that the relief as sought for

in writ jurisdiction can be sought for at the hands of the

Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court itself and

therefore, writ court should not ordinarily grant indulgence in

the matter. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ

petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined

to direct respondent No.3 to consider the subject

representations inasmuch as they are founded on the order of

the Special Court made in L.G.C.(T) No.1310/2018, as rightly

pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed off directing respondent No.3-Tahasildar to

accomplish the task as directed by Karnataka Land Grabbing

Prohibition Special Court within a period of four weeks from

the date of copy of this judgment is handed.

If there is delay brooked in accomplishing the task, the

Tahasildar may be required to pay exemplary costs on a

Memo being moved in this regard.

Now, no costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS