This judgment imposes an order requiring the auction respondents to verify the existence of a tamarind tree on the petitioner's property boundaries before harvesting.
Respondents directed to verify if tamarind tree exists on petitioner's property; if so, respondents barred from harvesting.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.5729 OF 2017 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJANNA N., S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.178, MEDAHALLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE-560049.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
MANDUR POST, BANGALORE-560049.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;
SRI. M. RAMASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT iN I.A.NO.1/2017;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE MANDUR PANCHAYATH - RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RESOLUTION NO.14 DATED 21.12.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND THE CONSEQUENT AUCTION NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 10.01.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ACCEPTING THE FINAL AUCTION BID DATED 13.01.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY MANDUR PANCHAYATH - RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO THAT IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO KANESHUMARI NO.33 BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER AND ALLOW THIS PETITION WITH COSTS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the resolution passed
by the respondent No.1 dated 21.12.2016 and the consequent auction notice issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 dated 10.01.2017 and the document dated 13.01.2017 accepting the bid submitted by the respondent
3
No.3 to collect the usufructs from the tamarind trees standing on Government lands within the limits of the respondent No.2.
4
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had no authority to auction the crop of the said tree.
Nos.1 and 2 submits that the auction was only in respect of tamarind trees that were situate on land belonging to the Government within the limits of the respondent No.2 and that the respondent No.2 has neither encroached nor entered into or put up for auction any tamarind tree lying on any private property. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has challenged the resolution passed by the respondent No.1 and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be relegated to the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act of 1993’). He also submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not interested to enter into any private property including the property of the petitioner. However, he submitted that the
5
tamarind tree to which the petitioner is claiming right is not lying within the property of the petitioner.
and verify whether any tamarind tree exists on the property of the petitioner in the area measuring 90 feet x 90 feet. If the tamarind tree claimed by the petitioner is standing outside his site, then respondent No.3 is at liberty to proceed to harvest the tamarind crop from the tree. It is needless to mention that if the tree lies within the area measuring 90 feet x 90 feet, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall not be entitled to harvest the crop. In that event, the petitioner may challenge the authority of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 by filing appropriate civil suit.
6
The Writ Petition stands disposed off on the above
terms.
I.A. No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration
and the same stands disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
sma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can entertain the petitioner's challenge to the auction of tamarind crops on government land pending a dispute over private property boundaries.
Whether the petitioner is liable to be relegated to a statutory appeal remedy under Section 269 of the Act of 1993.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. RAJANNA N.
MANDUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SRI. D. SRINIVASA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
