Disposed

Arulappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2021WP/10082/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an internal communication directing the granting of housing sites to non-residents. The Court held that interference is improper absent material establishing a final decision contrary to rights. The petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue representations.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication was quashed with directions to consider petitioners' representations and liberty to approach the court again.

Arulappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10082/2021 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

ARULAPPA S/O LATE ANTHONAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, EX GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER R/AT THATTUGUPPE UTTARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶8

SRI HANUMANTHAPPA W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, EX GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER R/AT GUTTEPALYA UTTARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶9

SRI PRASANNA V. R. W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, EX GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER R/AT GULAKAMALE UTTARHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶10

SRI MAHESHKUMAR W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, EX GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER

¶11

¶12

R/AT GULAKAMALE UTTARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶13

SRI BALAKRISHNA

¶14

W/O LATE GOPLAREDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, EX GRAMA PANCHAYATH MEMBER R/AT GOPALAPURA UTTARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶15

6. SMT SHANTHAMMA

¶16

W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT GUTTEPALYA THARALU UTTARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶17

SMT CHAMUNDAMMA W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT GUTTEPALYA THARALU UTTARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶18

SMT SAHANA DEEPA PERARA W/O KIRNAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT THATTUGUPPE UTTARHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶19

SMT VELLAGANNI W/O PREMAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT THATTUGUPPE UTTARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶20

¶21

10.	SMT RAJAMMA
	W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT THARALU VILLAGE UTTARHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
11.	SMT ASHA ANTHONY MARY W/O JOHN PETER AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT THATTUGUPPE VILLAGE UTTARHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
12.	M. MADAREDDY W/O LATE NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT THARALU VILLAGE UTTARHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
13.	GAYATHRI M W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT THARALU VILLAGE UTTARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
14.	SMT LAKSHMI W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT THARALU VILLAGE UTTARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
15. (By	SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT THARALU VILLAGE UTTARHALLI HOBLI. BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. ... PETITIONERS SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A., ADVOCATE)

¶22

¶23

AND :

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M. S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶26

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶27

THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶28

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BENGALURU ZILLA PANCHAYATH BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶29

EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶30

(By SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶31

... RESPONDENTS

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, THERE BY QUASHING THE LETTER DATED 09.07.2020, ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN NO:ASHRAYA/CR/44/2021, DATED 09.07.2020, AT ANNEXURE-D.

¶33

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.

¶37

Srinivasa Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal and records are perused. The petitioners have impugned the communication dated 9.7.2020 between the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District [the respondent No.1] and the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru [the respondent No.4] and for certain directions to the respondents.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that action has been taken way back to grant sites in the land in Sy. No.189 of Tharalu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk under

¶39

¶40

'Ashraya Housing Scheme' only to the residents of Tharalu Grama Panchayat. The revenue records for this land are also entered in the name of Tharalu Grama Panchayat. But, the respondent No. 1 proposes to grant sites to the persons who are not residents of this village panchayat. The petitioners, who are residents of Tharalu Village and have made their applications for grant of sites in this land, have submitted representations to the authorities to desist from granting sites in the land in Sy. No.189 of Tharalu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk to the persons other than residents of Tharalu Grama Panchayat. These representations have not been considered by the authorities and therefore, the impugned communication has to be quashed with directions to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation.

¶41

¶42

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that Annexure-D is only an internal communication and it cannot be said on the basis of such communication that a final decision is taken to grant sites in the land in Sy. No.189 of Tharalu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk contrary to an earlier proposal, and the petitioners must pursue their representation with the respondents if they are indeed entitled to grant of benefits under the Ashraya Housing Scheme on the ground that they are residents of the Tharalu Grama Panchayat.

¶43

On perusal of the records, and in the light of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any material on record to establish that a decision is taken contrary to the earlier proposal and contrary to the petitioners’ rights, there cannot be any interference by this Court at this stage. However, the writ petition must be disposed of

¶44

¶45

observing that the petitioners will be at liberty to pursue

¶46

the representations given by them to the authorities.

¶47

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

AN/-

Arulappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arulappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Javaramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Balajee Deekshith Bobba Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Narasimhappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ugrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

C D Mukundappa Vs State of Karnataka

T R Subbalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka