Disposed

Mr. R. Venkataramana v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2021WP/13275/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation filed alleging illegal temple construction on forest land. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing State authorities to decide on regularization and forest status expeditiously within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to State authorities to decide on regularization and forest status within three months.

Mr. R. Venkataramana Vs State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.13275 OF 2017 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. R. VENKATARAMANA S/O LATE LAXMINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶10

R/O SONNASHETTYHALLI, CHINTAMANI TOWN & TALUK CHIKKABHALAPURA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶11

MR. S. NATARAJ S/O LATE SEENAPPA M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶12

R/O SONNASHETTYHALLI, CHINTAMANI TOWN & TALUK, CHIKKABHALAPURA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶13

MR. A R ANVAR S/O ABDUL RASHEED, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VENKATAGIRIKOTE, CHINTAMANI TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKABHALAPURA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.

¶14

MR. K MANJUNATH S/O KADIRAPPA,

¶15

¶16

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O JJ COLONEY, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, CHINTAMANI TOWN & TALUK CHIKKABHALAPURA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.

¶17

MR. R PRAKASH S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O SONNASHETTYHALLI, CHINTAMANI TOWN & TALUK, CHIKKABHALAPURA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶18

MR. C.N.MANJUNATH S/O C.V. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O RAJIV NAGAR, BEHIND SHANI MAHATHMA TEMPLE, BANGALORE ROAD, CHINTAMANI TOWN & TALUK CHIKKABHALAPURA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶19

MR. JANARDHANA N S/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, TAPATHESHWARA COLONEY, WARD NO.14, CHINTAMANI TOWN & TALUK, CHIKKABHALAPURA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶20

MR. G S RAGHUNATH REDDY S/O G.V. SRIRAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GOPALLI VILLAGE, NANDIGANAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI TOWN & TALUK, CHIKKABHALAPURA DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE.

¶21

...PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI.CHANNAKESHAVA B S, ADVOCATE)

¶23

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, VEDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01.

¶26

SENIOR GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKABHALLAPURA-562 101.

¶27

RANGE FOREST OFFICER CHINTAMANI RANGE, CHINTAMANI-562101.

¶28

SECRETARY VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, KONAPALLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK - 562 101.

¶29

GANGADARESHWARA SEVA TRUST (R) KISHORE VIDHYA BHAVAN, CHINTAMANI, KOLAR DISTRICT-562101 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF PATRON, MR. CHOWDA REDDY, S/O. M.C. ANJANEYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5; NOTICE TO R4 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶32

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE P-1 AT ANNEXURE-L AND CONSEQUENTLY TAKE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE R-5 AND ALSO TAKE OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE ENTIRE LAND WHICH IS UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION.

¶33

¶34

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Heard.

¶37

This public interest litigation has been filed alleging

¶38

illegal construction of temple in the cave on the forest land.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners has informed

¶40

that the Court vide order dated 17.02.2020 had directed the State Government to take appropriate decision as to whether the alleged illegal construction can be regularized. The order dated 17.02.2020 for convenience is reproduced below:

¶41

"The learned Additional Government Advocate states that the application for regularization made by the fifth respondent on 14^th August 2015 is still pending. We have perused the said application. The said application accepts that on a land vesting in the State Government, on a hill station, without permission of the State Government, idols have been installed by creating a cave having measurement of 400 ft. x 500 ft. Another structure admeasuring 40 ft.

¶42

¶43

x 50 ft. has been constructed on the Government land.

¶44

Surprisingly, it is stated in the application that the Members of Parliament and the Members of Legislative Council have sanctioned funds from the funds allocated to them for providing proper road facility to the temple.

¶45

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the land is a forest.

¶46

We direct the State Government to consider the application for regularisation dated 14^th August 2015 and decide the same within a period of one month from today. The State Government will have to consider whether the land is a forest land within the meaning of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. While deciding the application for grant of land and regularisation of the construction, the State Government will have to bear in mind that a huge area of 400 ft. x 500 ft. has been illegally encroached upon for construction of a temple and another structure admeasuring 40 ft. x 70 ft. has been constructed. The State will have to also consider this high handed conduct of occupying the area within the Government property and that the idols have been illegally installed.

¶47

¶48

The regularization can be made provided it is permissible in law. Before regularising, if at all the Government wants to regularise the encroachment made by the fifth respondent and the construction carried out thereon, the State will have to also consider whether the State Government will be encouraging illegality in the name of the God. The decision taken by the State Government shall be placed before the Court on the next date.

¶49

Let the petition be listed on 30^th March 2020 for Preliminary Hearing."

¶50

We have been informed by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the representation of the respondent No.5 for regularization dated 14.08.2015 is still pending and no decision has been taken by the State Government till date.

¶51

We are of the considered view that no fruitful

¶52

purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending as the land in question is said to be the Government property belonging to Forest Department. It is for the State Government to take a decision as to whether the temple

¶53

¶54

existing in a cave since a considerably long time can be regularized considering the public sentiments and whether the State Government has to take any other decision in this regard.

¶55

We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the concerning State authorities to take appropriate decision in this regard as directed earlier as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned. The concerning authority, if feels, may also give an opportunity of representation to the petitioner.

¶56

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶57

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Mr. R. Venkataramana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. R. Venkataramana v. 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

Sri Chandrashekhar Vs Government of Karnataka

Kazeem Ahamed Shariff Vs Chief Secretary

Sri Venkatesha M Vs the Chairman

Smt.Indumathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Nilesh Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka