Post on 10-Nov-2014
description
transcript
17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION NO. 15511-14 OF 2013 [GM - RES] PIL
BETWEEN:
1. Samaj Parivartana SamudayaA Society registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960,having its principal office at‘Ashadeep’, Jayanagar Cross, Saptapur,Dharwad – 580 001KarnatakaRepresented by its Executive DirectorSri S.R.Hiremath Petitioner No.1
2. Sri Deepak.C.N.S/o C.M.Nagaraju,Aged 34 years,Residing at No.723, 13th Cross,1st Phase, BEL Layout,Bharathi Nagar,BangaloreKarnataka Petitioner No.2
3. Dr S.L.PawarS/o Lakshman Rao PawarAged 67 years,Residing close to Head Post Office,Ranebennur – 581 115Haveri DistrictKarnataka Petitioner No.3
4. Sri Raghavendra KushtagiS/o Venkoba AcharAged 63 years,Residing at No.2-6-67/70Manik Prabhu Layout,Near Dental College,RaichurKarnataka Petitioner No.4
AND:
1. Union of IndiaThrough its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and ForestsParyavaran Bhawan,
Respondent No.1
18
CGO Complex, Lodhi RoadNew Delhi – 110 003
2. State of KarnatakaThrough its Chief SecretaryVidhana SoudhaBangalore -560 001Karnataka
Respondent No.2
3. Karnataka Public Lands CorporationRepresented by its Managing Director2nd Floor, Deputy Commissioners Office Building,K.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 009Karnataka
Respondent No.3
WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The Petitioners above named most respectfully
submit as under:-
1. The short but important question of law that arises for the
consideration of this Hon’ble Court in this case is:
Is it lawful for our executive Government to
deliberately, knowingly and intentionally refuse to act
when it is provided with specific, definite and actual
information that certain Government lands have been
encroached upon by private persons through
clandestine, illegal, manipulative, corrupt or fraudulent
means?
2. The address of the parties for the purposes of issuance of
Court Notice, Summons etc., from this Hon’ble Court is as
shown in the cause title and the petitioners may also be
served through their counsel, Sri K.V.Dhananjay and Sri
Gopala Krishna, Advocates, No.296, Magadi Main Road,
Kamakshipalya, Bangalore – 560 079.
Facts of the case:
19
3. The Petitioners are filing this Writ Petition in terms of Article
226 of the Constitution of India solely in public interest. The
petitioners are aggrieved with the fact of extensive,
sustained, clandestine, unbridled and continuing
encroachment of public lands in the State of Karnataka. The
fact of such encroachment is documented by no less than
the Karnataka State Legislature and by the Executive
Government of Karnataka. In this regard, the Reports
submitted by the Joint Legislature Committee of the
Legislature of Karnataka and the subsequent report of the
Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection do
prove to a legal certainty that vested interests within the
Government are primarily responsible for massive
encroachment of Government lands.
4. The aforesaid Reports show that nearly 11,00,000 acres
(Eleven Lakh acres) of Government lands have been
allowed to be encroached by private persons and vested
interests across the State of Karnataka. This estimate is not
a mere guess work but is a product of careful verification of
the records, enquiry and spot inspection in many cases by
the Karnataka Legislature Committee and by a dedicated
Task Force appointed by our State Government. Of the
11,00,000 acres (Eleven Lakh acres) of encroached upon
Government land, 1,65,796 acres (One Lakh Sixty Five
Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety acres) are forest
lands. Of this 1,65,795 acres (One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand
Seven Hundred and Ninety Six acres) of forest lands,
1,04,497 acres (One Lakh Four Thousand Four Hundred and
Ninety Seven acres) are in the ecologically sensitive
Western Ghats in three districts alone.
5. Applying the Government published guidance values (which
are often conservative) wherever appropriate, the value of
such encroached upon lands has been estimated by the
Government Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its
20
Protection to be around Rs.1,95,000 Crores (Rupees One
Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Crores Only).
6. In perspective, a sum of Rs.1,95,000 Crores (Rupees One
Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Crores Only) is far larger than
the loss estimated to have been caused by corruption
involved in the 2G spectrum scam and the illegal mining
scam in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
7. The Petitioners are also filing this petition with a prayer for
strict compliance with the Order dated 28-Jan-2011 passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.1132 of 2011 i.e., Jagpal Singh and others v. State of
Punjab and others AIR 2011 SC 1123 and in W.P. No.202 of
1995, i.e. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. It is
submitted that vide the said Orders, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had directed that effective steps be taken for the
protection of public lands from encroachment, by all States.
Despite the aforesaid Order, the State of Karnataka has not
merely failed to take effective steps for compliance with the
said Order but has intentionally and knowingly disbanded a
dedicated task force called ‘The Task Force for Recovery of
Public Land and its Protection’ whose purpose was the same
as the direction contained in the aforesaid Orders of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. After the said disbandment, the Petitioners, vide letter
dated 25-July-2012 had requested the Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka to take urgent and necessary
steps for the implementation of the Task Force Report dated
30-Jun-2011. Faced with no response from the Government,
the petitioners wrote to the Chief Secretary again on 27 -
Aug-2012. As of today, the Petitioners have not heard
anything in response to their representation to the
Government of Karnataka. Faced with this situation, these
21
petitioners have realised that there is no further recourse
available to them than to approach this Hon’ble Court.
9. The Petitioner No.1, Samaj Parivartana Samudaya is a
Society registered under the Karnataka Societies
Registration Act, 1960 under No.162/83-84 dated 06-Mar-
1984. The activities of the Petitioner No.1 encompass
different fields such as prevention of pollution in the
Tungabhadra River in Karnataka due to lax supervision of
polluting industries, safeguarding of common lands, social
forestry, wasteland development, the promotion of
decentralized nurseries and the conservation and protection
of the Western Ghats. The Petitioner No.1 works in close
collaboration with many other non-Governmental and
humanitarian organisations. Amongst other cases filed in
courts, the Petitioner No.1 was the petitioner in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.562 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India bringing to its notice, the fact of widespread and large
scale illegal mining in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
Further, the founder of the Petitioner No.1, Sri S.R.Hiremath,
was the applicant in IA No.60 in Writ Petition No.202 of 1995
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said IA concerned
the forest and tribal issues in the Bastar region of the then
Madhya Pradesh (now Chattisgarh). Further, the Petitioner
No.1 had also filed Writ Petition No.35 of 1987 seeking
restoration and restitution of 75000 acres of forest lands
from a joint sector company called Karnataka Pulpwood
Limited to the village communities in four districts of
Karnataka. In short, the Petitioner No.1 has been working in
the arena of environment, forests, good governance and
anti-corruption.
10. The Petitioner No.2, Sri Deepak.C.N., is a social activist who
has rendered his services to various social awareness
programmes. The Petitioner No.2 was involved with
‘Janaagraha’, a non-governmental organisation to create
22
awareness among citizens in matters related to governance
for over a period of five years.
11. The Petitioner No.3, Dr S.L.Pawar is a doctor of medicine by
profession and hails from Ranebennur town in Haveri
district. The Petitioner No.3 has served as the Secretary and
President of the Indian Medical Association, Ranebennur.
The Petitioner No.3 has also served as the President of
‘NEEDS’, a non-governmental organization for four years.
12. The Petitioner No.4, Sri Raghavendra Kushtagi is a social
activist and is currently the President of Hyderabad
Karnataka Janandolana Kendra. This organisation had
fought for the successful implementation of Article 371 of
the Constitution for the four districts of Karnataka i.e., Bidar,
Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary. He is also serving as the
Executive of Janasangarama Parishad, a body which has as
its aim, the protection of natural resources and other land
related issues.
13. The Respondent No.1, the Union of India, is represented by
the Ministry of Environment and Forests. This Ministry is the
nodal agency in the administrative structure of the Central
Government for the planning, promotion, co-ordination and
overseeing the implementation of India’s environmental and
forestry policies and programmes. It is the solemn duty of
the Union of India to oversee the implementation of its
policies and programs relating to conservation of the
country's natural resources including its lakes and rivers, its
biodiversity, forests and wildlife and to ensure the
protection of animal life and the prevention and abatement
of pollution.
14. The Respondent No.2 i.e., State of Karnataka is the
custodian and legal owner of all public lands within the
territory of the State of Karnataka. It is the guardian of the
common lands which are a common and shared heritage
23
not only of the current citizenry of the State, but of all
future citizens. It is the solemn duty of the State to ensure
that such common lands are preserved intact and not
usurped illegally. The Respondent No.2 is also entrusted
with the legal and constitutional duty to ensure strict and
effective implementation of the laws already in place to
protect and preserve public lands.
15. The Respondent No.3, Karnataka Public Lands Corporation
Limited is a body corporate that has been specifically
incorporated by the Government of Karnataka with the
avowed objective of protecting government lands recovered
from encroachment. The fact that a body corporate even
came to be established to keep a vigil over formerly
encroached upon Government lands itself speaks volumes
about the extent of such encroachment.
16. On 17-Jun-2006, the Legislature of Karnataka had appointed
a Joint Legislature Committee comprising of 14 MLAs and 6
MLCs under the chairmanship of Sri A.T.Ramaswamy to
inquire into and submit a detailed Report on encroachment
of Government lands in Bangalore and its adjoining areas.
During its tenure, this Joint Legislature Committee (referred
to hereinafter as ‘JLC’, for short) received 1,101 complaints,
conducted 40 meetings, visited 90 sites of encroachments
over several days and conducted over 200 internal review
meetings. Numerous representations, information,
grievance and complaints received by the JLC were
promptly registered and enquired into by it. Twenty Eight
(28) different departments and statutory bodies were
summoned before the JLC and were asked to inform about
the various aspects of implementation of cases referred to
them by the JLC.
17. After the aforesaid detailed enquiry, the JLC submitted two
reports on 01-Feb-2007 and 26-Jul-2007 to the Karnataka
24
Legislature. Original versions of the Joint Legislature
Committee reports dated 01-Feb-2007 and 26-Jul-2007 are
produced herewith and marked as Annexure - A and
Annexure - B respectively.
18. The interim and final JLC reports conclude that various State
instrumentalities such as the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike which is nothing but the Bangalore Municipal
Corporation, the Bangalore Development Authority, City and
Town Municipal Councils etc., have grossly and knowingly
failed in their legal and statutory duty to protect
Government and public lands. Instead, these bodies have
found it convenient to express helplessness and have in
many cases, acted as active participants, abettors and
promoters in land grabbing crimes in tandem with members
of organised land grabbers.
19. At this context, it becomes necessary to note the role of one
Sri V.Balasubramanian (IAS), Retd. Sri V.Balasubramanian
was the adviser to the JLC and had previously held the office
of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka.
Eager to know the model that had been implemented in the
neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh to combat the evil of
land grabbing, Sri V.Balasubramanian along with the
Secretary for Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation and the
Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department had visited
the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh to study the
functioning of the Special Courts established under the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the mechanisms adopted by the
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and the Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad for preventing encroachments.
Pursuant to the aforesaid study and the JLC report, the
Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Bill, 2007 was tabled
and passed by both the Houses of the Karnataka
Legislature, unanimously. Moreover, the Revenue
25
Department had also piloted a legislation for incorporating
an amendment to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
(‘KLR Act’) to separately criminalise acts of land grabbing
(Section 192-A of the KLR Act).
20. Although the JLC did submit very elaborate and detailed
reports to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the
Karnataka Legislative Assembly itself came to be dissolved
in 2007 and the JLC accordingly, stood defunct consequent
to the imposition of the President’s rule in the State. Later,
upon formation of a newly elected Government, no
immediate action was taken to implement the
recommendations of the JLC.
21. The JLC Reports: (Note: The word ‘Halli’ in Kannada means a
‘village’ and countless city regions in the State still carry the
name ‘Halli’ though such a ‘halli’ in the heart of say, the city
of Bangalore, Mysore or Belgaum is nothing more than a
vestige from the past). The following findings from the JLC
reports may be noted:
22. An area of 1099 acres of forest land has been encroached
by 312 persons in Bangalore Urban District Forest Division.
Further, 313 acres of tank bed lands have been similarly
encroached upon by 553 persons. The Bannerghatta
National Park which spans over 7374 acres has also been
encroached by 813 different persons to an extent of 767
acres.
23. Certain real estate businesses in conspiracy with a few
builders from Hyderabad have created bogus sale records in
respect of forest land in Uttarahalli Manavarathe Kaval
Minor Forest and have therefore grabbed 344 acres of
pristine forest lands. Out of this grabbed area, the
Bangalore Development Authority has knowingly proceeded
to acquire 42 acres in the name of ‘Banashankari VI Stage
Project’ and has, very surprisingly, passed an award for
26
payment of Rs.3.6 Crores in favour of persons claiming to
be unauthorized cultivators. This land lies within 15
kilometres from the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
limits and is therefore, expressly barred from being
regularised in terms of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964. Even with full awareness of this prohibition, the
Bangalore Development Authority and the Land Tribunal
have disregarded this and have passed compensation
awards in respect of the said forest land in favour of private
persons.
24. In December 2008, the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation
Limited i.e., the Respondent No.5 was incorporated with
Rupees Five (5) Crores of paid up capital inter alia to protect
government lands recovered from encroachment.
25. Thereafter, in order to effectively implement the
recommendations of the JLC, a dedicated body called as the
‘Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection’
was constituted under the chairmanship of the former
Additional Chief Secretary, Sri V.Balasubramanian, IAS
(Retd.). This was done through a Government Notification
Vide G.O. No.RD 556/LGB/2009 dated 19-Sept-2009 which
did specify that as part of its work, this Task Force was
required to issue directions to the several Government
departments and statutory bodies to take specific and
appropriate action to remove encroachments. Thereby, this
Task Force was legally established for the purpose of
ensuring the implementation of various laws and statutes
that were already in existence to recover encroached public
land. Unlike the objective of the JLC which was confined to
address the encroachment of public lands in Bangalore and
its surrounding areas, the jurisdiction of this Task Force was
extended to cover the entire territory of the State of
Karnataka and to all Government lands including lands
vested in statutory and local bodies. The “Task Force for
27
Recovery of Public Land and its Protection” shall be referred
to hereinafter as “Task Force”.
26. This Task Force undertook enormous efforts to identify
encroached public lands throughout the State of Karnataka.
It took various steps such as conduct of spot inspections,
tracing the history of land records in respect of encroached
upon property, verification and scrutiny of property
documents and Government records and the issuing of
numerous and co-ordinated instructions to the Government
authorities to take immediate and time-bound steps for the
recovery of encroached public lands.
27. The Petitioners state that the Task Force had not only
issued a detailed statement of its activities in the form of a
Final Report but had also issued or otherwise ensured
issuance of numerous reports in respect of certain glaring
instances of encroachment. The report of the Task Force
itself records that its efforts to recover encroached public
land were often defeated primarily on account of lack of
administrative will. Few such instances of this Task Force
going about its task and the sudden, calculated and
unlawful interferences that it witnessed may be noted
below:
28. This Task Force had conducted a very detailed investigation
in respect of encroachments in Gollahalli village, Anekal
Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. The Task Force report inter
alia states that a road was formed in the middle of a lake
land encroaching nearly 2 acres and 11 guntas of lake land.
When the Task Force had co-ordinated a team of people
from various departments to demolish the encroachments
therein on a particular day and the entire machinery of
people and tools from the Taluk office, Deputy
Commissioner’s office along and the members of the
Special Task Force were on the spot to carry out demolition
28
of such encroachments, the persons in illegal occupation of
such land came forth with an order of injunction, not from
any competent Court of law, but from the Hon’ble Chief
Minister of Karnataka to the effect that no action be taken
at all to remove any encroachments and that all
encroachments be left in place as they were.
29. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the aforesaid stay
order could have only been issued for the protection of
certain vested interests and not for any public good.
Obviously, such intervention was not merely illegal but had
the effect of sending out a loud and clear message to all
concerned that the Government stance against
encroachment of public lands was largely ceremonial and
nobody, including this dedicated Task Force was meant to
take the Government’s professed objective with any degree
of seriousness.
30. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the Karnataka Public
Land Corporation had requested the Chief Secretary of the
State through a letter dated 19-Dec-2009 for vacating the
stay Order/withdrawal of the directions given on 16-Dec-
2009. It would surprise the right thinking members of our
society that nothing ever came of the said request from the
said Government body to the Chief Secretary of the State. A
copy of the stay order issued by the Hon’ble Chief Minister
bearing No. MuMu/203/grutha/2009 dated 16-Dec-2009 is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure – C. A copy of
the letter dated 19-Dec-2009 addressed by the Managing
Director of Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited to
the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka is produced
herewith and marked as Annexure - D.
31. This Task Force had inquired into and found out multiple
instances of encroachment of forest lands by certain
plantation owners. Consequently, it had addressed various
29
letters to the concerned departments to take specific
remedial action. To the utter shock and dismay of any right
thinking citizen, the Secretary to the Chief Minister had
issued a note dated 19-Nov-2010 ordering that no
precipitative action be taken without considering all the
submissions or explanations of the alleged encroachers and
even thereafter, nothing was to be done until a final
decision was worked out by the Government.
32. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the aforesaid note
had been issued merely to benefit certain vested interests
and to stall the legitimate effort of the task force. A copy of
the aforesaid note bearing reference No. PSCM/3495/2010
dated 19-Nov-2010 issued by the Secretary to the Hon’ble
Chief Minister is produced herewith and marked as
Annexure - E.
33. Thus, the Petitioners respectfully state that the efforts of
the Task Force were repeatedly frustrated by such acts and
numerous other omissions of other Government agencies.
34. At this juncture, it is pertinent to submit that the
Government of Karnataka had set up 16 different task
forces such as the Knowledge Commission, Vision Group of
Karnataka 2020, etc. One of these 16 task forces was the
aforesaid ‘Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its
Protection’. For reasons that still continue to surprise the
right thinking members of our society, the Government of
Karnataka, that is, Respondent No.2 published through a
Notification that the Task Force shall be disbanded with
effect from 04-Jul-2011 vide GO No.RD 897 LGB 2010. A
copy of the said order issued by Respondent No.2 bearing
number GO No.RD 897 LGB 2010 dated 04-Jan-2011 is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure – F. The
reasons apparently stated in the said Order were incorrect
to the very knowledge of the Government. All the same, the
30
other 15 task forces continued to remain in operation after
the disbandment of this Task Force although the work of
some of those Task Forces would have greatly benefited by
the continued operation of this Task Force. The action of the
Government of Karnataka in unlawfully disbanding the said
Task Force is an act that cannot be justified under the label
of ‘administrative discretion’ in view of the circumstances
that preceded such disbandment. If it was the intention of
the Government, in disbanding the Task Force, to relieve
the encroachers of their worries, anxieties and fears, the
Government may be said to have succeeded thereby. A
tabular chart detailing the various task forces/commissions
that were set up by the Government of Karnataka is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure - G.
35. This Task Force issued its Report on 30-Jun-2011 and titled
it as ‘Greed and Connivance’. This Report was duly
submitted to the Government of Karnataka on 04-Jul-2011.
(This report shall be referred to hereinafter as the ‘Task
Force Report’). However, the Respondent No.2 appears to
have declined to accept the Task Force Report on account
of alleged procedural irregularities. A copy of the Task Force
Report dated 30-Jun-2011 issued by the Task Force is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure - H.
36. After the submission of the Task Force Report, his
Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka took serious note of
the large scale encroachment of public lands and addressed
a letter on 13-Sep-2011 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of
Karnataka inquiring into the steps taken by the Government
of Karnataka towards the implementation of the
recommendations in the Task Force Report. It was reflected
in the said letter that the loss to the public exchequer on
account of such encroachment of public lands is in the
amount of approximately Rs.1,95,000 Crores (Rupees One
Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Crores Only). A copy of the said
31
letter dated 13-Sep-2011 addressed by His Excellency, the
Governor of Karnataka to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of
Karnataka is produced herewith and marked as Annexure –
J.
37. The Petitioners have reliably learnt that His Excellency, the
Governor of Karnataka had inquired into and had also
instructed the Respondents to act upon the Report and to
take action for recovering encroached public lands. The
Petitioners have further reliably learnt that the following
three committees have been constituted thereafter, by the
Respondent No.2:
(i) Committee – Revenue Department, headed by
Secretary to the Revenue Department. The Petitioners
have learnt that whilst a meeting or two have been
conducted, no concrete steps have been taken so far.
(ii) Committee – Forest Department, headed by the
Principal Secretary, Forests, Environment and Ecology.
The Petitioners have learnt that no meetings have
been conducted by the Committee and that the Forest
Department is not even aware of the constitution of
such a Committee in respect of land grabbing.
(iii) Committee – Urban Development, headed by the
Secretary, Urban Development Department. The
Petitioners have learnt that no meetings have been
conducted thus far, by this Committee.
38. The Task Force Report and JLC Reports (both these reports
shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘Reports’) emphatically
state that despite various legal provisions for the protection
against encroachment and for removal of encroached public
lands, blatant encroachments of public lands have
continued primarily due to the intentional refusal or
indifference of various ‘competent authorities’. Between
intentional omission and indifference, these are the
32
intermediate factors at play - ignorance of proper legal
powers, lethargy, fear of consequences arising from vexing
those in power, aggressive interference by powerful
interests and last but not the least, collusion with
encroachers. The Task Force quotes the JLC Reports and
proceeds to state that the powers vested in various officers
are in fact, wasted on them.
39. The Reports state that the estimated value of the
encroachments in the Bangalore Urban District consisting of
the five Taluks of Bangalore North, Bangalore North
Additional, Bangalore East, Bangalore South and Anekal
Taluks, on a conservative estimate of Rupees One and half
(1.5) Crore per acre, on average, is Rupees Forty Thousand
(40,000) Crores.
40. The JLC Report enumerates the details of encroachment,
which is extracted herein below (in respect of Bangalore
Urban District):
Sl.No.
Name of the Department
Encroachment in acres
Approximate value in
Crores
1. Revenue
Department
9294.00 18,588.00
2. Bangalore
Development
Authority
2,878.20 5,236.25
3. Muzrai 38.09 165.55
4. a) Forest
b) Tank bed
719.34
219.20
1,877.08
5. Karnataka Industrial
Area Development
Board
33.22 66.44
6. Town Municipal 8.08 32.32
33
Councils/ City
Municipal Councils
7. Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike
7.08 46.00
8. Karnataka Housing
Board
34.08 152.00
9. Wakf Board 259.33 780.00
10. Housing Co-
operative Societies
86.19 170.00
11. Bangalore University 11.22 96.11
12. Transport
Department
3.31 18.00
13. Health Department
(NIMHANS)
3.20 25.00
14. Animal Husbandry
Department
45.00 100.00
15. Slum Clearance
Board
12.19 25.00
Total 13,614.37 27,377.75
41. The Reports states that the extensive growth of Bangalore
in the last 20 years has resulted in an exponential increase
in the value of land, consequently, resulting in extensive
encroachments of government land. Therefore, the Task
Force Report observes that Bangalore’s rapid development
has created a very lucrative real estate industry which has
beckoned an organised ring of specialists whose work is to
encroach upon Government and Public lands with the active
blessings and involvement of persons in power within and in
the vicinity of Bangalore. The extensive growth in the
Bangalore Urban and Bangalore Rural districts fuelled by
the high value of lands and availability of large area of
34
Government lands like gomal, gunduthope, tank-beds, parks
and civic amenities sites have led to their extensive
encroachments.
42. The JLC report observes that Bangalore Urban District
contains a large extent of erstwhile Inam lands which
became Government land after the abolition of Inams
(‘Inam lands’ were certain Government lands previously
bestowed to certain persons in return for their services to
the Government subject to the pleasure of the Government
and to the continued performance of such services. In the
decades following the 1950s, such inams were statutorily
abolished). However, erstwhile Inam lands which had
reverted to the Government such as community lands have
also been encroached upon.
43. Another observation made by the Task Force was the illegal
use of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes,
chiefly residential development. For instance, a company
called Epsilon Ventures Private Limited had knowingly
violated the various land use laws by proceeding to
construct expensive villas for wealthy customers without
regard to the land use laws in force. The Task Force had
addressed a letter on 29-Dec-2010 to the Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, requiring the
Deputy Commissioner to enquire as to whether the project
had been undertaken with the requisite conversion from
agricultural use to other uses in terms of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961. Thereafter, the Tahsildar undertook a personal
inspection and after according an opportunity to the
promoters to state their response, wrote on 05-Aug-2011 to
the Deputy Commissioner. The report of the Tahsildar
indicates that public land measuring 2 acres and 16.5
guntas had been encroached upon therein. The report
further states that structures have been constructed on an
35
approximate area of 12 acres and 4.14 guntas without the
requisite land/non-agricultural conversion. The Petitioners
submit that despite such report as aforesaid by the
Tahsildar, no action has been taken by the Respondents to
safeguard such public lands. The Petitioners most
respectfully submit that the aforesaid events amply
demonstrate a clear lack of administrative will in taking
prompt and effective action for the recovery of encroached
public land and that there are vested private interests which
have been successfully operating against public interest. A
copy of the said report dated 05-Aug-2011 is produced
herewith and marked as Annexure – K.
44. The Task Force, in its report, also makes certain findings
about the auction procedure followed by the Revenue
Department to dispose off public lands. Taking upon certain
concrete cases, the Task Force has stated that
advertisements about the auctions were not wide enough.
And that holders of General Powers of Attorney and the
same agent representing multiple bidders were unlawfully
permitted to participate in such auctions. Inevitably, such
transgressions have easily led to collusion, rigging and
cartelisation. For instance, the Report speaks of the case of
one bidder by the name of Sri Yousuff Shariff. The total
extent of lands auctioned by the Deputy Commissioner for
Bangalore Urban district between 2005 and 2009 and
thereafter confirmed by the Government is 643 acres. This
auction had fetched to the Government, a sum of Rs.540/-
Crores (Rupees Five Hundred and Forty Crores only). Of the
auctioned 643 acres, 283 acres have been confirmed in
favour of one person, Sri Yousuff Shariff making him the
single biggest beneficiary of such auctioned lands. The Task
Force Report also states that Sri Yousuff Shariff acted as the
same general power of attorney holder for multiple bidding
companies such as Umrah Brothers, Afnan Developers, Hill
36
Land Properties, MVR Securities and Top Notch
Infrastructure – a factor that all bidding processes
fundamentally prohibit. As stated in the Report, the Task
Force had brought this irregularity to the notice of the
Principal Secretary of Revenue Department and Chief
Secretary of the State of Karnataka vide letters dated 04-
Oct-2010 and 05-Oct-2010 but to no avail.
45. The Petitioners state that lack of administrative will for
taking swift and prompt action in respect of land grabbing is
further demonstrated by the following other acts described
in the Reports:
46. The Reports state that the Bangalore Development
Authority (referred to hereinafter as ‘BDA’, for short) does
not even maintain an updated Property Register for reasons
best known to it and is therefore, is no position to
accurately ascertain the total extent of encroachment of
lands within its jurisdiction. Still, of the BDA’s own estimate
of Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine (2,739)
acres under encroachment, it has been able to recover not
more than a meagre Twelve percent (12%) or Three
Hundred and Thirty Three (333) acres of land after the
formation of the Joint Legislature Committee in 2006. A
conservative market value estimate of such encroached
upon land has been estimated by the Task Force at a
staggering amount of Rupees Eleven thousand Crores
(Rs.11,000/- Crores). The Report records inter alia the
following inadequacies and failures of the BDA to act in
accordance with its statutory duties and employ its
statutorily given powers:
(i) BDA, like so many other departments and local bodies,
does not even maintain an updated Property Register.
In the absence of such a register, the BDA is often
37
clueless and unable to ascertain the complete extent
of the encroachment of its land;
(ii) BDA has often failed to insist upon the statutorily
mandated earmarking of 45% of layout area (15% for
parks, 10% for civic amenities site and 20% for roads).
As such, by disregarding its statutory obligations, the
BDA is neither taking a firm stand on relinquishment of
these sites by erring layout developers nor does it
insist prior to approving distribution of sites that the
private layouts should fence and handover public
purpose lands to the BDA;
(iii) The Reports further opine that the functioning of BDA
has been hampered by ineffective legal services
availed by it;
(iv) The Reports state that de-notification of acquired land
has also added to the woes of BDA. The Reports
record myriad instances of de-notification of civic
amenities sites. The Task Force Report indicates that
about Two thousand eight hundred and thirteen
(2,813) acres have been de-notified and that in almost
all cases of de-notification, the Government has not
observed the pertinent rules; and
(v) The Task Force Report also records the inefficiency of
the Revenue Department in auctioning reclaimed
Government land.
Forest Land.
47. The Task Force Report states that the total geographical
area of Karnataka State is 1,90,498 square kilometres. Of
this, 30,718 square kilometres are classified as forests. This
is equivalent to about Seventy Six (76) Lakh acres of forest
lands in the State. According to the details furnished by the
Forest Department, an area of one lakh sixty five thousand
seven hundred and ninety six (1,65,796) acres are under
38
encroachment. This shows a colossal failure on the part of
the Central and State Governments in the enforcement of
the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest Conservation Act,
1980, the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the significant
Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Forest case, WP
(C) No.202 of 1995. Further, the encroachment of more
than 60% of the Forest lands occurs in the ecologically
sensitive Western Ghats, one of the 18 ecological hotspots
in the world.
48. The Task Force Report has reported the helplessness
expressed by the concerned officials and their inability to
remove encroachments by influential persons. For example,
there is an encroachment of about 60 acres of forest land in
the border area between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in
Janagalkunte forest by a former Speaker of the Karnataka
Legislative Assembly. Despite an order dated 30-Mar-2007
passed by the Assistant Conservator for the removal of
encroachment, the matter could not proceed any further as
the said order was appealed before the Conservator.
Thereafter, the Conservator had ordered for joint
measurement of the encroachment by a team of officials
from the Forest and Revenue Departments vide his order
dated 16-Jul-2008. However, the joint inspection was
expectedly obstructed by persons eager to retain the
encroachment and the inspection team was not even
allowed to enter into the area. The Task Force then found
out that those very lands had already been surveyed in
detail by Forest surveyors and encroachment stood
established by clear maps that were available. In further
turn of events, the alleged encroacher had approached this
Hon’ble Court and the Task Force was of the bonafide
impression that the alleged encroacher did misrepresent
the relevant facts to this Hon’ble Court. Thereby, an Order
came to be passed by this Hon’ble Court on 16-Dec-2010
39
directing one more survey of the lands in question.
Accordingly, another exhaustive survey took place and
expectedly, confirmed the fact of encroachment. The matter
has since been held up in the Courts.
49. The Reports outline the following reasons for the extensive
encroachments and the inability of the forest department to
effectively deal with such encroachment:
(i) Although 7,846 forest offence cases have been booked
under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Forest Act’), Orders have been passed
only in 1,193 cases by the Assistant Conservators of
Forests despite considerable number of years lapsing
after the registration of such cases. Thereafter, most
such orders accomplish nothing as they are routinely
challenged before the Conservators of Forests;
(ii) The JLC Report records instances of encroachment in
Turahalli Minor forest, Bannerghatta National Park and
Bangalore Urban Forest Division. JLC Report further
recommends action impugning criminal negligence
against concerned Forest Department Officials.
50. The Petitioners further state that there are numerous
instances galore of encroachment by large landholders and
such encroachments are in respect of large areas. A Report
indicating encroachment of areas exceeding 10 acres in the
Chikmagalur forest division and the Bhadra Wildlife division
is produced herewith and marked as Annexure – L. A
perusal of this report would leave no manner of doubt that
with extensive information already available on all aspects
of encroachment in regard to such forest lands, the only
element that is lacking to remove such encroachments is an
ordinary effort by the Government officers.
40
51. The Petitioners further state that a large number of such
encroachments are made by persons in positions of power
in active connivance with law enforcers. A copy of a news
report indicating encroachment by former speaker of the
Karnataka Legislative Assembly Sri K.R.Ramesh Kumar is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure – M.
Lakes, Water Bodies and Storm Water Drains
52. The Task Force Report states that there are about 38000
lakes in Karnataka. In Bangalore Urban District alone, there
were about 600 lakes. As some lakes fell under two
adjoining survey numbers belonging to two different
villages in the revenue records, the number of lakes in
Bangalore Urban District has been shown as 937. The JLC
report states that in 1961, there were 262 water bodies in
Bangalore City area. These water bodies have become the
first casualty of illegal layout formation, rank trespass,
blatant encroachment and sanction by various departments
of the State and Central Government to put up construction.
The reasons for such encroachment are stated in the Report
as under:
(i) Lakes and tank beds have been encroached upon by
builders, shopkeepers, hoteliers, layout makers and
sites selling realtors, timber merchants, educational
institutions, instant overnight temple builders, political
personalities, industrialists and sometimes, even by
the BDA itself;
(ii) The Task Force Report further affirms that there are
about 840 kilometres of raja kaluves and storm water
drains which have been mostly encroached upon and
used as sewage channels instead. The JLC reports
state that the statutorily incorporated Karnataka
Pollution Control Board has wasted its powers to
initiate prosecution against those who pollute the tank
41
bed by encroachment. Matters were not helped by the
State Pollution Control Board conveniently shifting the
onus upon the Central Pollution Control Board in
certain cases;
(iii) The Lake Development Authority (herein after referred
to as ‘LDA’ for short) is a society registered under the
provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1960 in
July 2002 with the objective of protecting, maintaining
and developing lakes in the State. The Reports state
that LDA is a high powered authority with the Chief
Secretary to Government as its Chairman while senior
officers of the State Government, the BDA and of
BBMP are its members. The Task Force Report states
that the LDA is not vested with sufficient powers to
initiate action for removal of encroachments and inter
alia for this reason, has not been successful either in
curbing encroachment or in recovering encroached
lands;
(iv) In 1985, an expert committee under the chairmanship
of late Sri N.Lakshman Rau, IAS (Retd.), was formed to
examine drawbacks and problems related to
preservation and restoration of tanks in the then
Bangalore Metropolitan Area and to make suitable
recommendations thereupon. Thereafter, the
Government of the day had accepted all of its
recommendations and had issued a Government Order
vide PWD 82 IMB 85 dated 11-Feb-1998. The said
Government Order had allocated the responsibility of
maintaining tanks/lakes as under:
(a) The 46 disused tanks should be handed over to
the Horticulture and Forest Department and
Ornamental Parks and Tree Parks should be
raised in these unused tank beds;
42
(b) The 81 Live Tanks should not be breached but
should be protected by foreshore planting and
they should be used for irrigation or for
recreation purposes to preserve environment;
(c) The 262 tanks in the Green Belt should be
protected and maintained just like the 81 Live
Tanks;
(d) The Forest Department has been handed over 90
tanks and lakes exclusively for preservation; 24
other lakes should be preserved jointly by the
Forest Department and Karnataka State Tourism
Development Corporation; Tourism Department
(12), BDA (6), BWSSB (4), Minor Irrigation (1) and
BBMP (1);
(e) In addition to Cubbon Park and Lal Bagh, six to
eight Regional Parks should be developed in
disused tank beds, if necessary by acquiring
additional adjoining lands;”
(v) The Reports assert that the aforesaid government
bodies to whom the tanks were allocated have
wantonly failed to protect those lakes and tank beds
from encroachment. The Task Force Report
significantly states that the Lakshman Rau Committee
recommendations were implemented in breach rather
than in observance. The Reports thereafter make
detailed recommendations for removal of
encroachments as well as for controlling pollution of
the lakes which have become sewage tanks posing
serious health hazards and thereby violating various
environmental laws including the provisions of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (herein after
referred to as ‘EP Act’ for short) and the related rules
43
and notifications. Here, one is bound to see a colossal
failure of the State and the Central Pollution Control
Board as well as of the Ministry of Environment and
Forest, Government of India in the enforcement of the
Environment and Forest laws of the land such as the
EP Act and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and
other related statutes and notifications.
Public, Religious and Charitable Institutions
53. The JLC Report found that a majority of Temple lands that
lie within the limits of Bangalore City and Bangalore Urban
District had been encroached. The JLC Report considered
about 1016 (One thousand and Sixteen) temples in
Bangalore Urban District out of which 68 (Sixty Eight) are
situated in important commercial areas within the city. In
many cases, very valuable temple lands were sold off on
the basis of forged documents. Competent authorities such
as the Muzrai Department and the Religious and
Endowment Department have not taken effective measures
to protect temple lands and property. The JLC Report also
states that if properties belonging to 68 different temples in
the Bangalore city alone were safeguarded and let out at
prevailing market prices, the income generated thereby
could take care of renovation and development expenses of
almost all such temples in the State that are under
Government care.
Collusion of Government Officials in Land Grabbing
54. The Reports record various instances of blatantly illegal
regularization of unauthorized construction on lands. In
some cases, proceedings before the Upalokayukta are seen
to be pending. The Reports also record instances of flagrant
breach of the KLR Act and the Rules and Regulations made
thereunder whilst regularising unauthorised cultivation. The
KLR Act prohibits the regularisation of unauthorised
44
cultivation of lands that are situated within 18 kilometres
from the outer BBMP limits. The Reports specifically record
numerous, but blatant violations in this regard. The Reports
observe that about 5,835 acres of land have been
regularized in the vicinity of Bangalore even with factual
knowledge that almost all of such lands are situated within
18 kilometres from the BBMP limits. The Task Force Report
states that the lands in respect of which regularization
applications have been either illegally allowed or are
pending in respect of nearly 20000 acres of land could be
valued at Rs.20,000 (Twenty Thousand) Crores.
55. The JLC Report notes that in a majority of cases,
encroachers were able to get khatas (record of rights in
respect of immovable property made in their names) from
the BBMP, BDA, City Municipal Councils (hereinafter referred
to as CMCs, for short), Town Municipal Councils (hereinafter
referred to as TMCs, for short), Gram Panchayats etc.
through submission of evidently false documents. The JLC
Report inter alia takes note of the fact that the procedures
prescribed for the issuance of Khatha, No Objection
Certificate, construction license and other similar
permissions are not followed scrupulously by the officers
concerned.
Government Litigation
56. The Reports also observe that the Revenue Department has
failed to effectively safeguard Government lands through
the medium of litigation. Clause 65-A of the Karnataka
Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 requires
the Department of Law to review pending Government
litigation, at least once in a month. In the Reports, it is
observed that despite the existence of such a review
mechanism, in Bangalore Urban District alone, more than
1000 (One thousand) cases before the City Civil Court and
45
this Hon’ble Court had witnessed the passage of ex parte
Orders against the BDA that could have been have avoided
through greater vigil on the part of those concerned. The
estimated loss caused to the Government on account of the
said ex-parte Orders alone is over Rs.2,000/- Crores. The JLC
Report observes that the Law Department should
computerize its records on the lines of computerisation of
records by this Hon’ble Court to increase its efficiency in
monitoring cases.
57. The JLC Report suggests that the present system of
selection of Government advocates could be vastly
improved upon and that it should be changed. It also
recommends the creation of a High Level Committee with
superintendence over the selection/termination of
Government advocates. The Reports set out elaborate
recommendations for reinvigorating the prosecution and
defence of litigations involving the Government.
City Survey
58. The Reports state that the Government is unable to
effectively protect Government land or Commons such as
Gomal, Gunduthope, Tankbeds etc., primarily because of a
failure to accurately survey or to promptly update entries
wherever already surveyed. The JLC Report urges the State
to conduct a city survey using recent advancements in
technology. The JLC Report makes a comparison between
the older methods of survey using tools such as cross staff,
chains and theodolite and states that the errors arising from
the older methods could be drastically cut down by using
advanced methods of survey that use Total Station
instrument. The JLC Report states that installation of
Geographical control points and Total Stations produces an
accurate survey to the extent of five (5) mm.
46
59. The Report further recommends that the system of
‘Registration of Titles’ established under the Torrens System
is preferable to ‘Registration of Deeds’, as the present
system of Registration is susceptible to easy exploitation by
encroachers. The crucial distinction between Registration of
Deeds and that of Registration of Titles is that in the former,
properties are transferred upon execution of deeds,
whereas in case of the latter, properties are transferred by
Registration of Title in a public registration (after verifying
the title by the claimants).
60. The Reports opine that an elaborate exercise of accurate
survey and printing of land and property records by modern
methods and a detailed City Survey Enquiry giving due
public notice will result in creation of property title
documents which would be certainly more dependable than
the documents that are issued or registered in the present.
The Reports observe that a complete survey for the entire
Bangalore Metropolitan Region will go a long way in
reducing encroachment of government lands.
De-notification of public land
61. The Task Force Report points out numerous irregularities in
the process of de-notification of public lands. In addition to
providing some glaring examples, the Task Force opines
that there is hardly any justification in deleting lands within
a given layout by adopting a “pick and choose” method as
is done in most cases.
62. The Petitioners state that there are numerous instances of
illegal de-notification of public lands in the name of
‘administrative discretion or expediency’ and therefore, it is
just, necessary and proper that this Hon’ble Court consider
issuing a workable set of guidelines and directions that
would be binding upon the Government in the event that it
chooses to de-notify lands that were previously acquired for
47
public purposes. The Petitioners further submit that
allocation of public lands to private persons, be they
individuals, companies, trusts, societies etc., is often not
accompanied by any objective satisfaction in the mind of
the Government that any public good is achieved by such
conveyance and in all such cases, there would be a violation
of the ancient principle that public lands always belong to
the ‘commons’ and should be preserved as such except in
the case of a compelling necessity. The Petitioners
respectfully submit that public lands cannot and should not
be diverted to merely benefit private persons without any
demonstrable good to the public and that certain public
lands and facilities, by their very nature, are best kept
accessible to the general public in the present and for
posterity.
The Karnataka (Land Grabbing) Prohibition Bill, 2007
63. Pursuant to the recommendations of the JLC, the Karnataka
Legislature had passed the Karnataka (Land Grabbing)
Prohibition Bill, 2007. Thereafter, the same was submitted
to the Union Home Ministry with a view to obtain the
President’s assent in July, 2007. However, four years later,
on 04-Mar-2011, the Union Home Ministry chose to return
the bill to the Government of Karnataka for a specific
inclusion of Wakf Board lands. The JLC Report states that in
the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh, the enforcement
of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act,
1982, has successfully curbed large scale encroachment of
public lands inter alia due to the setting up of special courts
to exclusively deal with cases of encroachment of public
lands. The Reports, therefore, recommend that the State
should take immediate measures to carry out the necessary
amendments and to again table the Karnataka (Land
Grabbing) Prohibition Bill, 2007. Since the publication of the
Task Force Report in July 2011, the new Bill has been
48
passed in the Legislature but no steps have been taken to
obtain the assent of the President expeditiously which does
lead a right thinking citizen to doubt whether there is any
administrative will at all to address the problem of
encroachment with the seriousness that it deserves.
64. The JLC Report inter alia recommends the preparation of a
Master Plan for the use of encroached lands after their
successful recovery keeping in mind the principles of
sustainable development, future growth, requirements of
infrastructure and the environment.
65. The Petitioners vide their letter dated 25-July-2012 had
requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to
take urgent action for effective implementation of the
Report dated 30-Jun-2011 issued by the Task Force for the
Recovery of Public Land and its Protection. When the
petitioners noticed that no response was forthcoming a
month later, they issued another reminder dated 27-Aug-
2012. However, as of today, the petitioners have not
received any response whatsoever from the Government
and it is their honest impression that the absence of any
response from the Chief Secretary simply demonstrates that
the Government does not at all intend to move any further
in recovering encroached upon lands than where it stood
while the Task Force came to be disbanded on 04-Jul-2011.
A copy of the letters dated 25-Jul-2012 and 27-Aug-2012
addressed by these petitioners to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Karnataka are produced herewith and
marked as Annexure - N and Annexure - O respectively.
66. From a perusal of various news reports, it appears that the
Task Force Report was submitted to the Government on or
before 04-Jul-2011, i.e., the date set for the submission of
the final report. However, it further appears that the Task
Force Report has not been accepted by the Government on
49
account of some alleged procedural irregularities. If not for
the fact that concerned citizens had eagerly sought for
copies of this Report and that multiple copies thereof came
to be printed and made available at the personal cost and
expense of the Chairman of the Task Force, it was more
than likely that the gigantic work that has been done by the
Task Force would never have come into public knowledge in
the manner that it has spread. The Task Force Report
spares none howsoever and goes on to record very specific
instances of encroachments, without fear or favour of any
person. Needless to say, the work undertaken by the
Chairman of this Task Force was of such nature that there
always was a dire threat against his life during the
performance of his duties. It was at such a personal cost
and a grave threat to his own life that one public servant
truly took the motto of the Government of Karnataka,
‘Government’s work is God’s work’ to his heart and has
prepared and entrusted a comprehensive Report to the
public. It is respectfully submitted that the implementation
of the JLC Reports and the Task Force Report which is of
paramount public importance, is being ignored by the
Government. Moreover, besides setting up the Task Force,
the Government has failed to take effective measures to
curb encroachment or to recover public lands. The efforts of
the State Government and its various instrumentalities have
at best been lackadaisical and consequently, the State has
failed to perform its constitutional and statutory duties.
67. These petitioners had, therefore, deemed it necessary to
approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court and had filed a Writ
Petition in terms of Article 32 of the Constitution before the
Supreme Court under the circumstances as aforesaid. On
15-Feb-2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to
state in Writ Petition (Civil) No.67 of 2013 that the issues
raised therein were ‘indeed grave’ and to direct that:
50
“In case the petitioners move the Karnataka High
Court in a properly constituted petition, the High Court
shall examine the matter and pass appropriate Orders
on it without any undue delay”
A copy of the aforesaid Order dated 15-Feb-2013 passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.67 of 2013 is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure - P.
Court Fee
68. The Petitioners share the same cause of action. However,
the applicable Court Fee has been individually assessed and
a sum of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four hundred only) against 4
Petitioners has been duly tendered to this Hon’ble Court.
69. Therefore, the Petitioners submit that in order to address
the very issues that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has termed
as ‘grave’, these petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India on the following, amongst, other grounds:
Grounds
The grounds urged hereunder are without prejudice to one
another. The Petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to
urge additional grounds at the time of hearing.
I. It is the duty of the executive, i.e., of the State Government
and its instrumentalities to strictly and scrupulously
implement the laws that have been enacted by our
Legislature. Such is our constitutional scheme of
governance. The alarming rate of encroachment of public
lands is largely due to the evident reluctance of the
executive Government to perform its statutory duties. It is
respectfully submitted that the State machinery which is
already equipped with numerous powers under various
statutes has wantonly failed to address the burgeoning
51
problem of land grabbing. The ‘Task Force Reports’
decisively state that such failure is not merely attributable
to apathy but to also active participation and connivance by
many public servants themselves. There are several legal
provisions in various statutory enactments that already
equip the State Government to combat the evil of
encroachment of public lands. Instances of legislations
addressing the problem of encroachment, as applicable to
the State of Karnataka are enumerated as under:
i) The BDA, despite being empowered by Section 33A of
the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, to
evict and prosecute encroachers and abettors has
failed to effectively employ such provisions against
encroachers;
ii) Section 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, provides ample
powers for eviction of unauthorised occupants.
However, the Respondents have failed to take strict
action pursuant thereto;
iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976
empowers the BBMP to take punitive action against
encroachers and the BBMP has failed to employ such
provisions effectively;
iv) The Forest Department despite being in a position to
initiate action against the encroachers and its abettors
under Section 3A read with Section 2 of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980, has failed to invoke such
statutory powers;
v) Section 64A of the Forest Act provides for penalty for
unauthorisedly taking possession of land constituted
as reserved forest, district forest, village forest,
protected forest and any other land under the control
of the Forest Department;
52
vi) The Revenue Department has acted in disregard of
the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 such as Section 94A which specifies instances
where regularisation should be considered and Section
94B which prescribes the conditions under which land
can be granted. Further, the Revenue department has
failed to prosecute land grabbers and their abettors
under aforesaid sections of KLR Act, 1964;
vii) The provisions of the Prevention of Dangerous
Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as
‘Goonda Act’ for short) provides for penal
consequence for unauthorized use or occupation of
land belonging to a Corporation and aiding and
abetting such occupation by any person;
viii) Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development
Authorities Act, 1987 provides for penal consequences
and prohibition of unauthorized occupation of land;
ix) Section 72 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993
provides against obstructions and encroachments
upon public streets and open sites;
x) Section 54 of the Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 provides against
encroachment upon lands and buildings.
II. The Government of Karnataka has no administrative
discretion whatsoever not to comply with the aforesaid
statutes that have been passed either by the Parliament of
India or by the Legislature of Karnataka. None of the
aforesaid statutes offer any freedom to the Government of
Karnataka to ignore their mandate. As such, the question
that arises under the circumstances as are prevalent in the
State is whether the Government of Karnataka has
conducted itself in a reasonable manner in the matter of
addressing the evil of encroachment of public lands. No
53
reasonable person could, after perusing the various Reports
discussed in this petition, reach any satisfaction howsoever
that the conduct of the Government has been reasonable. It
has been anything but reasonable. It becomes the bounden
duty of this Hon’ble Court to intervene in cases such as this
where the conduct of the executive Government is squarely
opposed to the will of the Legislature.
III. The Respondents have arbitrarily disbanded the Task Force
which was set up for the protection of public lands from
encroachment. The Government had a clear duty to the
public to state the true reasons for the non-acceptance of
the Report of the Task Force. It is a fundamental principle of
administrative law that a Government should at all times,
conduct itself with utmost honesty with its citizens for
whose good alone, it is brought into existence in the first
place. The reasons denoted for disbanding the Task Force
were factually incorrect and the decision was taken in haste
and without due application of mind. The action of the
Respondent No.2 in singularly targeting and disbanding the
Task Force smacks of a malafide intention on the part of
Respondent No.2. It is most respectfully submitted that this
is indicative of the government’s rejection of public interest
of protecting public lands and forests. Such conduct is
nothing but a tacit support to the encroachers by
disbanding the Task Force that was simply discharging the
public duties that were entrusted to it.
IV. Too many pronouncements from our Courts already exist to
remove any and all doubt in the mind of the Government of
Karnataka that it cannot knowingly, intentionally and
deliberately refuse to act when it is officially informed by no
less than its own instrumentality that too many of our public
lands have been encroached upon. As such, the
Government of Karnataka should be held to be reluctant to
54
abide by the numerous statutes already in force under the
circumstances described above.
V. The Respondents have failed and neglected to take
immediate steps even after the publication of the JLC
Report. The Petitioners submit that the recommendations of
the Reports deserve to be accepted unless there exist a
cogent and sound basis to reject the same. Further, the
interest of the public cannot be protected merely by formal
acceptance of those reports unless the recommendations
therein are implemented within a fixed and short span of
time. It is apparent from a perusal of the Reports that
extensive research has already been conducted on the
ground and on the basis of findings at the ground level,
elaborate recommendations have been made within the
framework of existing laws. The JLC Report has clearly
brought out the rampant irregularities plaguing the state
with respect to public lands.
VI. Article 144 of the Constitution of India mandates that all
instrumentalities of the State should strive and endeavour
to abide by the Orders of the Supreme Court. The State
machinery has knowingly failed to comply with the multiple
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India. It is
most respectfully submitted that not only has the State
failed in its duty of implementing the existing law, but the
State has further failed to comply with the directions issued
by no less than the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is most
respectfully submitted that the State machinery has failed
to check illegal encroachment and deforestation and has
thereby failed to take necessary remedial measures and
such failure has led to huge ecological imbalances. The
State is duty bound to prevent illegal encroachment and
deforestation to maintain the ecological balance of our
forest lands. It is submitted with utmost respects that the
55
State’s continued failure to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly necessitates
intervention by this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioners
respectfully seek the setting up of a committee by this
Hon’ble Court to assist it in the task of monitoring the
compliance by the Government of binding directions issued
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of directions expected to
be issued by this Hon’ble Court.
VII. The Respondent No.2 is yet to effectively comply with the
Orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.1132 of 2011 i.e., Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab
and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 1123. It is most respectfully submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an Order dated
28-Jan-2011 directing the States to take effective steps for
the protection of public lands from encroachment. It is
respectfully submitted that despite the aforesaid Order, the
Respondents have proceeded to disband the Task Force
which was set up for the very same purpose. It is most
respectfully submitted that the Task Force, through its wide
public notice had received during its functioning from
September 2009 to June 2011, petitions, personal
appearances, reference from Lokayuktha, telephone calls,
emails, newspaper reports and even anonymously, 1597
complaints of encroachments of public lands. Of these, 398
complaints were finally disposed off to the satisfaction of
the complainants through detailed enquiry by Deputy
Commissioners, Conservators of Forests or other district
level department heads. The remaining 1199 complaints of
encroachments were under different stages of enquiry when
the Task Force was disbanded at the direction of the then
Revenue Minister. It is learnt that such direction was
without any reference or concurrence of the cabinet
notwithstanding that the encroachments of public lands was
not confined merely to the Revenue lands and lands that
56
were the responsibility of several other departments and
ministries were also the subject of encroachment and an
unilateral decision by the Revenue department would have
been insufficient to cut short the functioning of the Task
Force whose work was to the benefit of several other
ministries as well. It is most respectfully submitted that of
the nearly 11 lakh acres of encroachments identified, only
47,309 acres of encroachments were removed by the
empowered officers of various departments. This removal
accounts for a mere 4.3% of recovery. At that stage itself,
the Government is seen to have developed unexplained
anxiety to disband the Task Force. The said action of the
Government to disband the Task Force at a time when the
Task Force was making steady progress is a square refusal
of the Government to not honour the aforesaid directions of
the Supreme Court. The disbandment of the Task Force,
under such circumstances therefore amounts to the
Government refusing to comply with the mandate of the
Supreme Court Order dated 28-Jan-2011. Under such
circumstances, the Government has necessarily invited the
intervention of this Hon’ble Court to remedy its breach.
VIII. The increased rate of deforestation which is taking place
due to rapid encroachment of forest lands is often
irreversible. Rare flora and fauna are thereby endangered
and what is already being lost may never be recreated no
matter what money is spent or what human effort is put to
the task in the future. Conservationists have stated that by
reason of such encroachments of forest lands, extinction of
animal and plant species is proceeding on an alarming
scale. Such rate of extinction over a short period of time is
incompatibly greater than the corresponding extinction over
the course of millions of years. Environmental degradation
due to avoidable neglect by the Government has always
brought about the intervention of our Courts and the need
57
for immediate intervention in these circumstances is greatly
warranted as the right to life as guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution of India involves the right to the
protection of one’s forest environment free from incursion
prohibited under the laws in force.
IX. The State’s reluctance to prevent encroachment of public
lands is a violation of the principle of ‘Public Trust’. Public
lands are a shared heritage of humankind and has to be
preserved for posterity. It is submitted that it is now a
recognized principle that human beings owe a duty not only
to their compatriots but also to the future generation to
preserve and protect common heritage. This very principle
has found acceptance in international law and is mentioned
in the United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas
(UNCLOS) and the UNESCO Declaration on the
Responsibilities of the Present Generations towards Future
Generations dated 12-Nov-1997. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board v. Sri C. Kenchappa and Ors., AIR 2006
SC 2038 has observed that “The public trust is more than
an affirmation of State’s power to use public property for
public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State
to protect the people’s common heritage”. Further, in the
case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the public trust
doctrine and held as follows:
“Our legal system – based on English common law –
includes the public trust doctrine as part of its
jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural
resources which are by nature meant for public use
and enjoyment. The State as a trustee is under a legal
duty to protect the natural resources. These resources
meant for public use cannot be converted into private
58
ownership. Thus the public trust doctrine is a part of
the law of the land.”
X. The Petitioners, therefore, respectfully submit that the State
is bound to retain control of and utilize public resources for
public good. Implicit therein is a duty to vigorously
safeguard all public lands from encroachment and where
the fact of encroachment is brought to the notice of the
Government, then to act forthwith to remove such
encroachment.
XI. By allowing illegal usurpers to encroach public lands, the
State is in fact, an abettor to gross violation of the rule of
law and the right to the environment and forest wealth
enshrined under our Constitution. It is respectfully
submitted that public lands earmarked for parks,
playgrounds, lakes/lake developments, schools have all
been blatantly encroached and unless the same is restored
back to the communities, the rights of our communities
would suffer in very real terms.
XII. The Task Force report indicates numerous illegalities in de-
notification of public lands. It is most respectfully submitted
that once a private land is notified for acquisition for a
public purpose in accordance with law, such land ought to
be treated as public land for all purposes and de-notification
ought to be allowed only in accordance with law and under
exceptional circumstances. The concept of public purpose
indicates that such land has to be put to such uses that
make the land and any structures thereon accessible to and
for the benefit of the public at large. It is respectfully
submitted that many instances of de-notification of public
lands are plainly improper, illegal and even mala fide
alienation of public lands to favour private interests. Such
selective de-notification of acquired public lands is clearly
discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the
59
Constitution of India. It is therefore, respectfully submitted
that it is just, necessary and proper that this Hon’ble Court
lay down detailed guidelines and directions in the matter of
de-notification of public lands so as to curb the possibility of
illegal, mala fide, unreasonable and discriminatory
deletions/de-notifications and to consider issuance of
binding directions to the executive Government in that
regard.
XIII. The rampant encroachment of public lands has necessitated
the creation of a Court monitored mechanism to ensure
strict implementation of existing laws. It is respectfully
submitted that our executive Government has largely failed
in discharging its constitutional and statutory duties in the
matter of curbing encroachment of public lands. Further, as
noticed in the Reports, a large number of encroachments
are caused with the knowledge of, if not the connivance of,
the State administration and such illegal co-operation are
procured at the instance and behest of influential persons. It
is respectfully submitted that the nexus of powerful persons
and perhaps, officials makes the task of implementation of
land recovery simply impossible except in the hands of iron-
willed men within the Government. Such peculiar
circumstances have necessitated the intervention by this
Hon’ble Court and the need for the creation of a continuous
monitoring by this Hon’ble Court.
XIV. The duty of the executive Government is to uphold the rule
of law. It is therefore necessary to proscribe and to
prosecute public servants whenever it comes to the
knowledge of the Government that the acts of such public
servants were deliberately and intentionally done to
knowingly facilitate encroachment by private persons. The
officers of the Government such as Deputy Commissioners,
Heads of Department and Chief Executive Officers have, as
shown in the Reports, failed to perform their statutory
60
duties. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners
respectfully submit that this Hon’ble Court consider the
issue of a direction to the Government not to spare erring
officials with a view to ensure that their departments
perform their statutory duties scrupulously to protect and
recover encroached lands.
XV. As stressed upon in the earlier paragraphs, the directions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been knowingly flouted by
the Government of Karnataka. To ensure that the Orders of
the Supreme Court are duly enforced, it is most respectfully
submitted that it has become just and necessary to
establish a Court appointed Monitoring Committee with a
specific mandate to ensure strict compliance of the orders
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Hon’ble Court.
XVI. As stated in the Reports, the absence of a comprehensive
survey has enabled the encroachers to illegally take
advantage and to encroach public lands. It is therefore,
necessary that this Hon’ble Court consider directing the
Government and its various agencies to carry out a survey
and to prepare a Master Plan for future public purposes. The
Reports have recommended that the Government should
initiate a city survey of Bangalore Metropolitan Area under
the Urban Property Ownership Records Project. In addition
to it, the utilisation of the services of the E-Governance
Department would greatly help in updating the property
registers and to therefore, aid the process of city survey. It
is submitted that such steps would be necessary to equip
the Government to more effectively check encroachment of
public lands.
XVII.Our legislature has already addressed the evil of
encroachment of public lands. Acting through the
Parliament of India and the Legislature of Karnataka, our
legislature has seen it fit to enact and pass various statutes
61
for the explicit purpose of preventing encroachment of
public lands. And, where public lands have already been
encroached, specific and definite powers have been
conferred upon our executive Government to act to remove
the encroachments and to punish the offenders or the
perpetrators. The language in which such powers have been
conferred to our executive Government does not admit of
any discretion not to act when it is informed about the fact
of encroachment contemplated in the statutes. Therefore, in
light of the constitutional scheme and arrangement that
have been adopted in our country, the legislature has
already done what it intended to do. The task then, of
administering the various statutes passed by the legislature
is squarely upon the executive Government. When the
language in which the powers to check encroachment has
been found not to admit of any discretion to the executive
Government to refuse to act when warranted, it becomes
the bounden and constitutional duty of the executive
Government to exercise the powers that already reside in it
for the purpose of removing encroachments. In the instant
case, it is not in doubt that the executive Government is
fully aware of the evil of encroachment of public lands.
What did it do then? It established a Special Task Force for
the express purpose of co-ordinating between various
Government departments to identify and to remove
encroachments of public lands. It is only after the said Task
Force went about its task in a faithful and honest manner
that the executive Government chose to disband the Task
Force altogether. The circumstances which led to the
disbandment of the Task Force have been explained in
great detail in this petition. Any reasonable person who
would be told about the circumstances that preceded the
disbandment of the Task Force would invariably reach the
conclusion that the Government was opposed to the
removal of encroachments and therefore, took the step of
62
disbandment. Had the Government been merely unhappy
with the functioning of the chairman of the Task Force, it
could have proceeded to replace the chairman with a
candidate whom the Government felt would act with greater
concern over the evil of encroachment. However, that did
not happen. Instead, the Government proceeded to disband
the Task Force altogether. In doing so, the Government has
unmistakably expressed its intention that it does not intend
to remove encroachments of public lands if doing so would
be inconvenient to those in positions of power. In a
hypothetical situation where the Government of the day
would candidly inform the judiciary that it does not intend to
address the evil of encroachment, the judiciary would then
be expected to explicitly inform the executive Government
that should it not want to carry out the will of the legislature
without any lawful excuse, it also loses its own legitimacy to
continue in office any further. When such is the scheme of
our constitutional arrangement, in the current
circumstances where the executive Government has most
clearly expressed its deliberate refusal, it has also put in a
clear invitation to this Hon’ble Court to deeply intervene in
the matter. In fact, the remedies of a writ precisely exist to
address such blatant and deliberate inaction of our
executive Government to enforce the will of our legislature.
Therefore, the case at hand is an extremely deserving case
of this Hon’ble Court’s intervention.
XVIII. Article 144 of the Constitution specifically directs all
Governments in the territory of India to act to enforce and
abide by the Orders of the Supreme Court of India. The
Orders of the Supreme Court referred to earlier in this
petition could not have been more specific, explicit or clear.
If the Government of Karnataka was unhappy or unwilling to
abide by the aforesaid Orders, it could have proceeded to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and expressed its inability or
63
reluctance and could have sought an Order on terms that
would have been acceptable to it. The Government of
Karnataka did no such thing. It merely chose to ignore the
said Orders of the Supreme Court and in doing so, it has
necessarily invited an extensive intervention by this Hon’ble
Court.
XIX. As early as in 1598, on the bounds of administrative
discretion, Lord Coke had said that: “notwithstanding the
words of the commission give authority to the
commissioners to do according to their discretions, yet their
proceedings ought to be limited and bound into the rule of
reason and law. For discretion is a science or understanding
to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and
right, between shadows and substances, between equity
and colourable glosses and pretences, and not to do
according to their wills and private affections – Rooke’s case
(1598) 5 Co. Rep 99b. Four hundred years later, there is
simply no room to doubt whether there is any discretion
available to our executive Government to deliberately,
knowingly and intentionally refuse to act when it is provided
with specific, definite and actual information that certain
Government lands have been encroached upon by private
persons through clandestine, illegal, manipulative, corrupt
or fraudulent means. There is and there can be none.
GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
I. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the
instant Writ Petition have been narrated in the aforesaid
paragraphs and the same may be considered as also
forming part of the reasons stated in support of the prayer
for interim relief.
64
II. It is plainly evident that the Respondents are not merely
disinterested in removing encroachments of public lands
but appear to be also interested in protecting
encroachments by those in positions of power or influence.
The same is evident from the fact that the Government of
Karnataka has proceeded to disband the Task Force under
the special circumstances narrated in the aforesaid
paragraphs.
III. There have been numerous instances of theft or destruction
of departmental files stored in the offices of the
Government of Karnataka whenever illegalities therein were
expected to be laid before a judicial forum. Under such
circumstances, it has further become necessary to seek the
restoration of the Task Force for Recovery of Public Land
And its Protection to similarly safeguard the records
pertaining to public land encroachments.
IV. The petitioners are mindful of the law that any Government
that establishes a committee would also possess the
requisite authority to disband the same at its discretion.
However, the nature of the task assigned to the aforesaid
Task Force was largely to coordinate with the various
Government agencies to ensure that they simply did their
own bounden task of acting to remove identified
encroachments of public lands. In other words, the work of
the Task Force was primarily aimed at reminding and
commanding the various agencies of the Government to
take steps to remove identified encroachments of public
lands. The disbandment of the same, under the
circumstances narrated above, is grossly illegal and
unlawful and the petitioners expect to persuade this Hon’ble
Court to so hold in the course of the hearing of this petition.
However, until this Hon’ble Court reaches such satisfaction,
it is necessary, just and proper that the said Task Force is
restored so that the work of removal of encroachments
65
upon public lands is not halted and the departmental files
that pertain to encroachments of public lands are duly
safeguarded.
V. The Government could have no manner of grievance if only,
as an interim arrangement, the Task Force is restored by
this Hon’ble Court and is permitted to proceed with the task
that it had solemnly performed in the period between 19-
Sep-2009, the date on which it was established and 04-Jul-
2011, the date on which it was disbanded. It is noteworthy
that the Government itself did not appear to have perceived
any infraction on the part of the Task Force warranting its
sudden disbandment. That is, on 04-Jan-2011 when the
Government notified that the Task Force shall only continue
for the next six months, the Government certainly could not
have known of any infraction warranting its immediate
disbandment. Therefore, it cannot be the case of the
Government that the Task Force itself warranted any
immediate disbandment at any point of time during its
functioning. This aspect assumes significance in the context
of the prayer for interim relief sought for by these
petitioners. As such, if only the tenure of the Task Force
came to be extended by this Hon’ble Court as an interim
arrangement in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction
to intervene in matters of such grave importance to the
public, there could be no prejudice caused to the
Government or even if there could be any, the same would
merely be theoretical and would be far outweighed by the
public interest that would be served by the restoration of
the Task Force, as an interim arrangement, through the
Order sought by this Hon’ble Court.
VI. The Petitioners are fully likely to prevail on the merits of
their case and that the grant of an interim stay upon the
operation of the impugned notification disbanding the Task
Force would not adversely affect any interest of the State
66
Government as the removal of encroachments and the
working of a body to ensure such removal are the very
responsibilities of the Government and no manner of
prejudice would be caused to the Government by the
causing of such removal under circumstances where the
Government itself is unable to show that it has arranged for
a different body to accomplish the very task that was
performed by the Task Force. Further, the fact that the
communication by the petitioners to the Government has
gone completely unresponded does support the argument
of the petitioners that the Government itself is without any
plan or substitute to occupy the place of the disbanded Task
Force. Accordingly, should this Hon’ble Court allow the
continuation of the Task Force as an interim arrangement,
not even a theoretical grievance could be said to have been
occasioned to the Respondents.
VII. It is noteworthy that more than 40,000 (Forty Thousand)
acres of encroached public lands were restored back to the
Government during the short tenure of the Task Force and it
would be reasonable to state that the removal of such
extent of land from encroachments itself speaks to the
efficiency and dedication of the said Task Force to its official
objective.
PRAYER
In the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased
to:
(a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or a Writ of any other
nature or description or an Order or direction to set
aside the Government Order No.RD 897 LGB 2010
dated 04-Jan-2011 disbanding the Task Force with
effect from 04-Jul-2011 (produced as Annexure - F to
67
this petition) on the ground of the same being
arbitrary, illegal, unlawful or representing abuse of
executive discretion and to direct the Government to
ensure the continuation of a Specially Empowered
Task Force to carry out all the discontinued functions
and responsibilities of the disbanded Task Force under
the supervision and control of this Hon’ble Court;
(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature
or description or an order or direction to the
Government of Karnataka, Respondent No.2 to recover
the public lands (as mentioned in the reports of the
Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its
Protection and Joint Legislature Committee of
Karnataka Legislature) that have been encroached
upon or illegally grabbed by private persons be they
individuals /institutions /trusts /societies/ non-
governmental organizations/charitable or commercial
enterprises or organisations of any other description
or nature and to report such recovery to this Hon’ble
Court;
(c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature
or description or an Order or direction to the
Government of Karnataka to investigate and to
prosecute, where warranted, the government officers
or public servants who have knowingly, intentionally
and deliberately aided, conspired or connived with
private persons to facilitate encroachment of public
lands and to join such private persons in the
prosecution so initiated;
(d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature
or description or an Order or direction to the
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to faithfully implement the
recommendations made in the report dated 30-Jun-
2011 submitted by the Task Force for Recovery of
68
Public Land and its Protection and reports dated 14-
Feb-2007 and 26-Jun-2007 submitted by the Joint
Legislature Committee of the Karnataka Legislature
unless the Respondents could show a good cause to
the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court to not so act on
those recommendations;
(e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature
or description or Order or direction restraining the
Respondents from alienating public lands to private
persons unless the Respondents reach an objective
satisfaction that such alienation would promote public
good and that no such alienation be effected unless
the same is in accordance with the statutory laws,
regulations and binding directions that may be issued
by this Hon’ble Court;
(f) Pass such other orders or directions or to issue
continuing mandamus as may be deemed necessary
in the facts and circumstances of this case.
[REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
69
PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
WHEREFORE, in view of the circumstances narrated above,
this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased, pending the
complete adjudication and determination of this Writ
Petition:
a) to issue an ex-parte interim stay upon the
Government Order No.RD 897 LGB 2010 dated 04-Jan-
2011 disbanding the Task Force with effect from 04-
Jul-2011 (produced as Annexure - F to this petition)
and to thereby restore the Task Force and to permit it
to function as if it was never disbanded;
b) to direct the Respondents, consequent to the issue of
prayer a) above, to provide the same support staff and
infrastructure as were provided to the Task Force
during the course of its earlier functioning;
c) pass any other Order or to issue any direction as may
be deemed expedient by this Hon’ble Court in the
circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS
SHALL EVER BE DUTY BOUND TO PRAY.
SRI K.V.DHANANJAYRoll No.KAR/659/2002
SRI GOPALA KRISHNARoll No.KAR/2216/2011
BangaloreDate: 28-Mar-2013 ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONERS