DATED THIS THE 24 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015 BEFORE: THE...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

BENCH, DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

WRIT PETITION Nos.65387-65396 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)

CONNECTED WITH



IN W.P. Nos.65387-65396 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)

BETWEEN:

1. Satyappa,

Son of Gangappa Bairannavar,

Age: 70 years,

Occupation: Agriculturist,

2. Basalingappa,


Age: 75 years,


3. Basappa,


Age: 65 years,


2

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are

residing at Narendra Village,

Taluk and District Dharwad.

4. Yallappa,

Son of Gangappa Taragar,

Age: 55 years,


5. Rudrappa,

Son of Channappa Taragar,

Age: 67 years,


Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are

Residing at Narendra Village,


6. Kallappa,

Son of Basappa Odeyar,

Age: 55 years,


7. Dyamavva,

Wife of Nagappa Odeyar,

Age: 60 years,


8. Basappa,

Son of Nagappa Odeyar,

Age: 65 years,


9. Ullavappa,


3

Age: 50 years,


10. Somappa,


Age: 47 years,


11. Rayappa,


Age: 40 years,


12. Basavaa,

Wife of Yallappa Kallur,

Age: 41 years,


13. Yallavva,

Wife of Fakirappa Naikar,

Age: 32 years,


14. Renuka,

Daughter of Nagappa Odeyar,

Age: 27 years,


15. Mallavva,

Wife of Kallappa Odeyar,

Age: 40 years,


16. Shivappa,

Son of Siddappa Odeyar,

4

Age: 48 years,


17. Hanamantappa,


Age: 47 years,


18. Kallappa,


Age: 44 years,


19. Yallappa,


Age: 37 years,


20. Madivalappa,


Age: 38 years,


Petitioner Nos.6 to 20 are

residing at Hiremalligawad,


21. Tippavva,

Wife of Dyamappa Dubbadamaradi,

Age: 65 years,


22. Shantavva,

Wife of Mallappa Sullad,

Age: 59 years,

5


Petitioner Nos. 21 and 22 are

Residing at Hiremalligawad,


23. Yallappa,

Son of Shivarudrappa Ganiger,

Age: 62 years,


Resident of Narendra Village,


24. Dyamappa,

Son of Basavanteppa Odeyar @

Deogiri,

Since deceased by his

Legal Representatives:

24a) Gangavva,

Wife of Dyamappa Odeyar @ Deogiri,

Age: 80 years,


24b) Kasturevve,

Wife of Late Basappa Odeyar @ Deogiri,

Age: 38 years,


24c) Kallappa,

Son of Dyamappa Odeyar @ Deogiri,

Age: 58 years,


6

24d) Ulavappa,

Son of Dyamappa Odeyar @ Deogiri,

Age: 47 years,


25. Veerabhadrayya,

Son of Rudrayya Pujar,

Since deceased by his

Legal Representatives:

25a) Kallavva,

Wife of Veerabhadrayya Pujar,

Age: 47 years,


25b) Basayya,

Son of Veerabhadrayya Pujar,

Age: 27 years,


25c) Gouravva,

Wife of Gurushiddyya Pujar,

Age: 25 years,


25d) Shivayya,

Son of Veerabhadrayya Pujar,

Age: 23 years,


26. Charantayya,


Age: 59 years,


7

27. Kallayya,


Age: 55 years,


28. Somayya,


Age: 50 years,


29. Channayya,


Age: 45 years,


30. Fakirappa,

Son of Yallappa Malligawad,

Age: 65 years,


31. Mailarappa,


Age: 62 years,


32. Malesh,


Age: 60 years,


33. Ningappa,


Age: 55 years,


8

34. Kallappa,

Son of Ningappa Malligawad,

Age: 25 years,


35. Akkavva,

Wife of Hanamantappa

Kalasappanavar,

Age: 58 years,


36. Surdevi,

Wife of Mailarappa Burli,

Age: 55 years,



residing at Hiremalligawad Village,


37. Ningappa,

Son of Bhimsingh Hulagannavar,

Age: 70 years,


38. Bhimsingh,

Son of Tamanna Hulagannavar,

Age: 49 years,


Petitioner Nos. 37 and 38

are residing at Hiremalligawad Village,

Taluk and District Dharwad. …PETITIONERS

(By Shri. V.M.Sheelvant and Smt. Girija S Hiremath, Advocates)

9

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,

Represented by its Secretary,

In charge of Housing,

M.S.Building,

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,

Bengaluru.

2. Karnataka Lokayukta Bengaluru,

Represented by its Registrar,

Karnataka Lokayukta,

M.S.Building,

Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,

Bengaluru.

3. The Director General of Police,

Carlton Bhavan,

Palace Road,

Bengaluru.

4. The Karnataka Housing Board,

Represented by its

Housing Commissioner,

Cauvery Bhavan,

Bengaluru.

5. The Executive Engineer,

Karnataka Housing Board,

Hubli Division, Chanukyapuri,

Hubli, District: Dharwad.

6. Vijaykumar Kakkayyanavar,

The Executive Engineer,

10



Hubli, District Dharwad.

7. S.N.Joshi,

The Assistant Executive Engineer,



Hubli, District: Dharwad.

… RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. S.C.Jainar, Advocate for Caveator Respondent Nos. 4

and 5;

Smt. K. Vidyavathi, AGA., for Respondent Nos.1 and 3;

Shri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2;

Shri. Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, Advocate for Respondent

No.2;

Shri. V.P.Kulkarni and Shri. H.R.Gundappa, Advocates for

Respondent No.5

Respondent no.7 served;

Shri. G.R.Andanimath, Advocate for Respondent no.6

Shri. V.T.Sonavalkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

*****

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3

to take appropriate action against the erring officials pursuant to

the enquiry reports vide Annexures-A to D and etc;

IN W.P.Nos.65404-65416 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)

BETWEEN:

1. Raju,

Son of Kallappa Vani,

11

Age: 48 years,


2. Satish,

Son of Kallappa Vani,

Age: 44 years,


3. Prema,

Wife of Kallappa Vani,

Age: 70 years,


4. Nirmala,

Wife of Ishwar Angadi,

Age: 42 years,


5. Vidya,

Daughter of Kallappa Vani,

Age: 38 years,



Residing at Hiremalligawad Village,


6. Sahadev,

Son of Tammanna Hulagannavar,

Age: 35 years,


Resident of Hiremalligawad Village,


7. Fakirappa,

12

Son of Basavaneppa Dharwad,

Age: 69 years,


8. Nagappa,


Age:66 years,


9. Parappa,


Age: 60 years,


10. Gouravva,

Daughter of Basavaneppa Dharwad,

Age: 55 years,


11. Mallavva,

Daughter of Basavaneppa Dharwad,

Age: 45 years,





12. Ninganagouda,

Son of Shiddangouda Patil,

Age: 55 years,




13

13. Kallappa,

Son of Basappa Metyal,

Age: 65 years,


14. Nagappa,


Age: 60 years,


15. Fakirappa,


Age: 58 years,





16. Mallanagouda,

Son of Kallanagouda Patil,

Age: 63 years,




17. Bhimasingh,

Son of Tammanna Huligannavar,

Age: 49 years,


18. Sahadev,

Son of Tammanna Huligannavar,

Age: 35 years,


14




19. Ningappa,

Son of Bhimsingh Hulagannavar,

Age: 70 years,




20. Paravva,

Wife of Mallappa Raddigeri,

Age: 71 years,


21. Veerupaxi,

Son of Mallappa Raddigeri,

Age: 38 years,


22. Irappa,

Son of Parappa Raddigeri,

Age: 56 years,





23. Fakirappa,

Son of Yallappa Malligawad @

Odeyar, age: 65 years,


15

24. Mailarappa,

Son of Yallappa Malligawad @ Odeyar,

Age: 62 years,


25. Malesh,


Age: 60 years,


26. Ningappa,


Age: 55 years,


27. Kallappa,

Son of Ningappa Malligawad @ Odeyar,

Age: 25 years,


28. Akkavva,

Wife of Hanumantappa Kalasappanavar,

Age: 58 years,


29. Surdevi,

Wife of Mailarappa Burli,

Age: 55 years,





16

30. Kallamma,

Wife of Kareppa Tegur,

Age: 67 years,




31. Smt. Savakka,

Wife of Arjun Hulagannavar,

Age: 65 years,




32. Tammanna,

Son of Gangappa Raddigeri,

Age: 52 years,




…PETITIONERS

(By Shri. V.M. Sheelvant, Shri. Vinay S Koujalagi and Smt. Girija

S Hiremath, Advocates)

AND:




M.S.Building,


Bengaluru.

17

2. Karnataka Lokayukta,

Bengaluru, represented by its

Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta,

M.S.Building,


Bengaluru.


Carlton Bhavan, Palace Road,

Bengaluru.


Represented by its Housing Commissioner,

Cauvery Bhavan,

Bengaluru.








Hubli Division,

Chanukyapuri, Hubli,

District Dharwad.

7. S.N.Joshi,




Hubli, District Dharwad. …RESPONDENTS

18

(By Shri. S.C.Jainar, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent Nos. 4

and 5;

Smt. K. Vidyavathi, AGA., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3;


Shri. V.T.Sonvalkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2;


No.2;

Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 served;

Shri. H.R.Gundappa, Advocate for Respondent No.5)

*****





IN W.P.Nos.65397-65403 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)

BETWEEN:

1. Irappa,

Son of Mallappa Kallyanavar,

Age: 72 years,


Resident of Kelgeri Village,


2. Mailarappa,

Son of Adiveppa Kallyanavar,

Age: 51 years,


3. Ningappa,


Age: 46 years,

19


4. Basappa,


Age: 40 years,


5. Mallappa,


Age: 38 years,


6. Neelavva,

Wife of Yallappa Kundargi,

Age: 55 years,


7. Mallavva,

Wife of Amrut Kundargi,

Age: 52 years,



Residing at Kelgeri Village,


8. Shankar,

Son of Dattu Ballenvar,

Age: 60 years,


9. Meenaxi,

Wife of Shankar Ballenvar,

Age: 54 years,


20




10. Paravva,

Wife of Mallappa Raddigeri,

Age: 71 years,


11. Veerupaxi,

Son of Mallappa Raddigeri,

Age: 38 years,


12. Irappa,

Son of Parappa Raddigeri,

Age: 56 years,





13. Ramchandra A Uchchil,

Age: 70 years,


14. Rajeevalochan,

Son of Timmappa Hegde,

Age: 69 years,


15. Jyoti,

Wife of Rajeevalochan Hegde,

21

Age: 64 years,


16. Chetan,

Son of Ramesh Sangal,

Age: 47 years,


17. Rupeesh,

Son of Ramesh Sangal,

Age: 37 years,


18. Vijay,

Son of Krishna Paikoti,

Age: 46 years,



Residing at Kelageri Village,


19. Irappa,

Son of Balappa Malligwad,

Age: 70 years,


20. Ningappa,


Age:68 years,


21. Smt. Nilavva,

Wife of Hanamant Arennavar,

Age: 30 years,

22


22. Maruti,

Son of Shankreppa Malligwad,

Age: 25 years,


23. Shekappa,


Age: 55 years,


24. Kumar. Suvarna,

Daughter of Shivappa Malligwad,

Age: 17 years,


25. Kumar. Santosh,

Son of Shivappa Malligwad,

Age: 15 years,


26. Kumar. Ramesh,

Son of Shivappa Malligwad,

Age: 12 years,


Petitioners No.24 to 26,

Since minor and represented by

their minor guardian petitioner No.23


Residing at Chikkamalligwad Village,


23

27. Smt. Shivavva,

Wife of Basappa Malligwad,

Age: 65 years,


28. Smt. Yallavva,

Wife of Birappa Kittur,

Age: 43 years,


29. Smt. Paravva,

Wife of Basappa Dubbadmaradi,

Age: 40 years,



Residing at Kelgeri,

Taluk and District Dharwad. …PETITIONERS

(By Shri. V.M.Sheelvant, Shri. F.V.Patil, Smt.Girija S Hiremath

and Shri. Vinay S Koujalagi, Advocates)

AND:




M.S.Building,


Bengaluru.

2. Karnataka Lokayukta,

Bengaluru, represented by its

Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta,

M.S.Building,

24


Bengaluru.


Carlton Bhavan, Palace Road,

Bengaluru.


Represented by its Housing Commissioner,

Cauvery Bhavan,

Bengaluru.








Hubli Division,

Chanukyapuri, Hubli,

District Dharwad.

7. S.N.Joshi,





…RESPONDENTS

(By Smt. K. Vidyavathi, AGA., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3;



No.2;

25

Shri. V.T.Sonvalkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2;

Shri. S.C.Jainar, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent Nos. 4 and 5;

Shri. H.R.Gundappa, Advocate for Respondent No.5

Respondent No.6 served;

Shri. M.B.Mattur, Advocate for Respondent No.7)

*****





These petitions having been heard and reserved on

18.12.2014 at Dharwad Bench, Dharwad and coming on for

pronouncement of Orders at the Principal Bench, Bengaluru, this

day, the Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the

petitioners are all similarly placed and have preferred the petitions

on identical grounds.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of

Hiremalligwad, Kelageri and Chikkamalligwad villages of

Dharwad taluk, Dharwad District, ironically in the vicinity of this

court’s premises of the Dharwad Bench. The brief particulars of

26

the lands belonging to each of the petitioners, of the respective

village, is mentioned hereunder in tabular form.

Sl.

No.

Writ Petition

Name of the land

owners

Extent Village Block

No.

I 65404-

416/2011

1.Raju Kallappavani

2.Sathish

Kallappavani

3. Prema

C/o Kallappavani

4. Nirmala

C/o.Eshwara Angadi

5. Vidya,

Daughter of

Kallappavani

5 acres

18guntas

(including

6 guntas of

Phot kharab)

Hiremalligawada

29

Sahadev Tammanna

Hulagannavar

(a) 21 guntas

Vide sale

deed dated

18.7.2006

(b) 1 acres

13 guntas

Vide sale

deed dated

13.11.2006

Hiremalligawada

Hiremalligawada

32

17

1. Fakirappa, son of

Basavaneppa

Dharwad

2. Nagappa, son of

Basavanneppa

Dharwad

3.Parappa,son of

Basavanneppa

Dharawad

(a) 9 guntas

(b) 1 acre 17

guntas

21

25

27

4.Gowravva daughter

of Basavanneppa

Dharawad

5.Mallavva daughter

of Basavanneppa

Dharawad

under two

separate sale

deeds

1. Kallanagouda, son

of Ningana gouda

Patil,

2. Ninganagouda s/o

Siddanagouda Patil,

3. Shantavva C/o

Fakiragouda Patil,

3 acre 6

guntas

Hiremalligawada

38

1. Kallappa,

Son of Basappa

Metyala

2. Nagappa, S/o

Basappa Metyala

3. Fakira, S/o

Basappa Metyala

9 acre 4

guntas

Hiremalligawada

42/P2

Mallanagouda

Kallanagouda Patil

4 acre 27

guntas

Hiremalligawada

40

1.Gadigeppa

Tammanna

Hulagannavara,

2.Bhimasingh

Tammanna

Hulagannavar,

3.Sahadeva

Tammanna

Hulagannavar

2 acres 16

guntas

Hiremalligawada

17

Ningappa

Bheemasingha

Hulagannavar

3 acres 34

guntas

Hiremalligawada

17

28

1.Fakirappa, son of

Yallappa Wodeyar

2. Ningappa, s/o

Yallappa Wodeyar,

by Muktiar Kallappa,

S/o Ningappa

Wodeyar

3. Mylarappa,

S/o Yallappa

Wodeyar

4. Mallappa S/o

Yallappa Wodeyar

5. Mahadevi, C/o

Mylarappa Burli

6. Akkawwa,

C/o Hanumantappa

Kalasappa

(a) 2 acres

38 guntas

under sale

deed dated

27.1.2007.

(b) 5 acres

under sale

deed dated

12.1.2007

Hiremalligawada

10

9

1.Fakirappa son of

Yallappa

Malligavada

2. Mylarappa s/o

Yallappa Malligawad

3. Malesh s/o

Yallappa Malligawad

4.Ningappa s/o

Yallappa Malligawad

5. Akkavva c/o

Hanamantappa

Kalasappanavar

6. Suradevi c/o

Mylarappa Burli

9 acres

Hiremallegawada

42

Kallamma C/o

Kareppa Tegur

30 guntas Hiremallegawada 27

Late Arjunappa, by

legal representatives

i. Smt. Savakka c/o

Arjuna

Hulagannavara

ii.Neelavva d/o

Arjuna Hulagannavar

iii.Hulagevva c/o

(a)22guntas

(b)32guntas

Total 1 acre

14 guntas

Hiremalligawada 32

17

29

Erappa Kavalikai

Gangappa son of

Parappa Raddigeri by

his Muktiyar

Tammanna s/o

Gangappa Raddigere

1 acre 33

guntas

Hiremalligawada 23

i.Virupakshi son of

Mallappa Raddigeri

ii.Basavva d/o

Mallappa Raddigere

3.Paravva c/o

Mallappa Raddigeri

4. Erappa s/o

Parappa Raddigeri

3 acres 25

guntas

Hiremalligawada 23

II 65397-

65403/2011

Erappa son of

Mallappa Kallaiah

4 acres Kelageri 684

1.Mylarappa

Adiveppa

Kallaiahnavara

2. Ningappa

Adiveppa

Kallaiahnavara

3. Basappa Adiveppa

Kallaiahnavara

4. Mallappa

Adiveppa

Kallaiahnavara

5.Basavannevva C/o.

Adiveppa

Kallaiahnavara

6. Neelavva C/o.

Yellappa Kundaragi

7. Mallavva C/o.

Amrutha Kundaragi

4 acres

Kelageri

684

1. Shankara son of

Dattu Ballenavara

2. Meenakshi C/o.

Shankara

2 acres 20

guntas

2 acres 20

guntas

Kelageri 685

30

Ballenavara

Total

5 acres

1. Virupakshi son of

Mallappa Raddigeri

2. Basavva daughter

of Mallappa

Raddigeri

3. Paravva C/o.

Mallappa Raddigeri

4. Erappa son of

Parappa Raddigeri

6 acres 37

guntas

Kelageri 686

1. Vikrama, son of

Ramachandra

Uchhila

2. Sameera, son of

Ramachandra

Uchhila,

3.Veda, son of

Ramachandra

Uchhila,

4. Brijesha son of

Ramachandra

Uchhila,

5. Sanjeeta son of

Rajeevalochana

Hegde by Muktiyar

Sri Rajeevalochana

son of Timmappa

Hegde

6. Jyothi C.\/o.

Rajeevalochana

Hegde

7. Chetana son of

Ramesh Shingaala

8. Roopesha son of

Ramesh Shingala

9. Vijaya son of

Krishna Paikoti

13 acres 23

guntas

Kelageri

677

1. Erappa Balappa

Malligawada

2. Ningappa Balappa

Malligawada

5 acres

Chikkamallig

-wada

215

31

3. Neelavva C/o.

Hanumantha

Arennavara

4.Maruti Shankrappa

Malligawada

5.Shekappa Balappa

Malligawada

6. Renavva C/o.

Channabasappa

Harakuni

[.Kumari. Suvarna,

daughter of Shivappa

Malligawada

8.Kumar Santhosh

son of Shivappa

Malligawada

Kumar Ramesh, son

of Shivappa

Malligawada ]

Since minors, by

their guardian

Shri. Shekappa

Balappa

Malligawada

1. Shivavva C/o.

Basappa

Malligawada

2. Yellavva C/o.

Beerappa Kittura

3. Paravva C/o.

Basappa

Dubbanamaradi

5 acres

Chikkamalligawada

215

III 65387-

65396/2011

1. Basappa son of

Gangappa

Bairannavara

2. Basalingappa son

of Gangappa

Bairannavara

3.Satyappa son of

Gangappa

Bairannavara by their

19 acres 19

guntas

Hiremalligawada 41/P1

32

Muktiar

Bharath Kumar

Parishappa Sheri

Yallappa son of

Gangappa Taragar by

his Muktiar Prakash

S/o Ravajappa

Sonawalkar

4 acres 16

guntas

Hiremalligawada

48

Rudrappa son of

Channappa Taragara

by his Muktiar

Prakash S/o

Ravajappa

Sonawalkar

4 acres

Hiremalligawada

11

1. Kallappa son of

Basappa Wodeyar

2. Dyamavva C/o.

Nagappa Wodeyar

3. Basappa

4. Hulavappa

5. Somappa

6. Rayappa son of

Nagappa Wodeyar

7. Basavva C/o.

Yellappa Kallur

8. Yellavva C/o.

Fakirappa Naikara

9. Renuka daughter

of Nagappa Wodeyar

10. Bheemappa son

of Shivappa

Wodeyar

11. Mallavva C/o.

Kallappa Wodeyar

12. Shivappa

13.Hanumanthappa

14. Kallappa

15. Yellappa

16. Madivalappa son

of Siddappa

Wodeyar

1 acre

19guntas

Hiremalligawada 14

33

By their Muktiyar

Lingaraja S/o

Basavanneppa Patil

1. Kallappa son of

Basappa Wodeyar

2. Dyamavva C/o.

Nagappa Wodeyar

3. Basappa, son of

Nagappa Wodeyar

4. Hulavappa, son of

Nagappa Wodeyar

5. Somappa, son of

Nagappa Wodeyar

6. Rayappa son of

Nagappa Wodeyar

7. Basavva C/o.

Yellappa Kallur

8. Yellavva C/o.

Fakirappa Naikara

9. Renuka daughter

of Nagappa Wodeyar

10. Yellavva C/o.

Kallappa Wodeyar

11. Shivappa son of

Siddappa Wodeyar

12.Hanumanthappa

son of Siddappa

Wodeyar

13. Kallappa son of

Siddappa Wodeyar

14. Yallappa son of

Siddappa Wodeyar

15. Madivalappa son

of Siddappa

Wodeyar

By their Muktiyar

Lingaraja S/o

Basavanneppa Patil

6 acres 30

guntas

Hiremalligawada

16

1. Tippavva c/o.

Dyamappa

2 acres 12

guntas

Hiremalligawada 9

34

Dubbadamaradi

2. Shantavva C/o.

Mallappa Sullada

By their Muktiyar

Shekargouda s/o

Basanagouda Patil

1 acre 12

guntas

Total 3 acres

24 guntas

10

Yallappa son of

Shivarudrappa

Ganigera by his

Muktiyar Lingaraja

s/o Basavanneppa

Patil

6 acres 20

guntas

Hiremalligawada 31

Dyamappa son of

Basavantappa

Wodeyara

By his Mukthiyar

Lingaraja son of

Basavanneppa Patil

5 acres 12

guntas

Hiremallinawada 32

1. Veerabhadraiah

2. Charantaiah

3. Kallaiah

4. Somaiah

5. Channaiah

By Muktiar Komal

s/o Padamappa

Jinagonda

8 acres 19

guntas

Hiremalligawada 15

1. Fakirappa son of

Yallappa

Malligawada

2. Mylarappa son of

Yallappa

Malligawada

3. Maalesha sonof

Yallappa

Malligawada

4. Ningappa son of

Yallappa

Malligawada

5. Akkavva C/o.

Hanumanthappa

6 acres

3 acre

Total 9 acres

Hiremalligawada 42/P1

42/P2

35

Kalasappanavara

6. Suradevi c/o.

Mailappa Burli

By Muktiar Komal

s/o Padamappa

Jinagonda

1. Ningappa son of

Bheemasingh

Hulagannavara

2. Bheemasingh

sonof Tammanna

Hulagannavara

By their Muktiar

Shivappa Babu Goni.

2 acres 26

guntas

21 guntas

Total 3 acre

7 guntas

Hiremalligawada

32

It transpires that the Karnataka Housing Board, (Hereinafter

referred to as ‘the KHB’, for brevity) a body established under the

Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, (Hereinafter referred to as

‘the KHB Act’, for brevity), is said to have formulated a Scheme

to develop a housing layout in the lands bearing Survey nos.7 to

49 of Hiremalligwad village. The said lands are in close

proximity to the National Highway no.4, the Pune – Bangalore

Road; The lands are said to be at a distance of about 10 KM from

Dharwad City.

It is alleged that the acquisition process was not preceded

by any public notification or even personal notices to the land

36

owners aforementioned. It is stated that the sub-ordinate officials

of the KHB had conducted a spot inspection of the lands lead by

the Executive Engineer, KHB and the Assistant Commissioner,

Dharwad District, but they had not revealed the purpose of the

spot inspection. However, it is learnt that certain persons acting as

middlemen, who claimed to have the confidence of the land

owners are said to have had discussions with the said officials as

regards an expeditious and voluntary sale of the lands by the land

owners. It is particularly alleged that respondents 6 and 7 in

particular, who are said to be the then Executive Engineer and

Assistant Executive Engineer of the KHB, and who were acting in

their self interest to benefit from the proposed transactions, had

acted in close concert with several middlemen, in persuading the

land owners to appoint the said middlemen as their agents and

power of attorney holders to transact with the KHB, in order to

ostensibly obtain a better price for their lands. However, it is the

case of the petitioners that they were misled by the said agents

who succeeded in taking all the petitioners into confidence,

37

en masse, to part with their lands for a paltry sum, only to enable

the middlemen and officials of the KHB, particularly respondents

6 and 7 to make illegal gains, at the cost of the petitioners.

When the petitioners realized the fraud played on them, in

retrospect, they are said to have approached the second respondent

with a complaint with regard to the manner in which they had

been deprived of their lands. On the basis of the said complaint,

respondent no.2 is said to have directed respondent no.3 to hold an

enquiry under Section 15(3)(a) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,

1984. An enquiry having been conducted, a report was said to

have been submitted clearly implicating respondents no.6 and 7

in having acted through middlemen, in inducing the petitioners to

part with their lands for a paltry sum, in order to make illegal gain

for themselves. The matter is said to have been forwarded to the

Police for further action. However, even as on the date of filing of

these petitions, no action is said to have been taken by the Police.

38

3. The learned counsel Shri V.M. Sheelavanth, Shri F.V.

Patil, Shri Vinay S. Koujalagi and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath

appearing for the petitioners, would contend that there are clear

findings in the enquiry report based on the enquiry conducted at

the behest of the Lokayukta, regarding the purchase of lands

through middlemen by playing fraud on the petitioners by the

KHB. The said transactions are violative of Section 33(1) of the

KHB Act. In that, for purchase of lands exceeding Rs.10 lakh in

value, the previous approval of the State Government was

mandatory. It is evident on record that there was no such approval

in respect of lands of Chikkamalligwad, Kelageri and Mummigatti

villages.

It is further contended that there are also guidelines for the

purchase of lands by the KHB, which have been completely given

a go by. It is stated that on 28.12.2005, a meeting of the District

Land Conveyance Committee is said to have been held under the

Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District. It

39

is alleged that Respondents no.6 and 7, without intimation of the

meeting to the petitioners, had kept their accomplices, who were

acting as purported agents of the present petitioners and a price of

Rs.5.75 lakh per acre was said to have been fixed as the price for

the lands in question. However, the lands in question had been

sold by the power of attorney holders for that price, who had also

received payment by account payee cheques in their personal

names. However, the land owners were given less than half that

amount by the said middlemen, as was discovered at the enquiry

conducted. And it was in such a similar fashion an extent of

more than 300 acres of land was sold and approval of the State

Government was also said to have been obtained in so far as

Hiremalligwad village is concerned. It is however, significant that

even though there was no such approval of the State Government

seen to have been obtained in respect of Kelageri and other

villages are concerned, sale deeds were said to have been executed

by the middlemen who had also received payment from the KHB

in a similar manner as aforesaid in their own names.

40

The enquiry report at the behest of the Lokayukta has found

that Respondent no.6, who was assigned the task of issuing public

notices in respect of the proposed acquisition and purchase of

lands meant for the housing project, had failed to issue any such

public notices. Similarly, there was no intimation to the true

owners of the lands as regards the price fixation Committee

meeting and the price having been fixed at Rs.5.75 lakh, the

petitioners have neither received the same nor was awarded the

appropriate compensation.

4. The KHB has contested the petition to deny the

allegations in the writ petitions. It is claimed that the petitioners

had voluntarily offered their lands for sale. The price of the land

was admittedly fixed at a meeting of the Committee headed by the

Deputy Commissioner of the District, which had been accepted by

the KHB and duly approved by the State Government as per Order

dated 24.5.2006.

41

Between the period 1.6.2006 and 15.3.2007, about 206

acres had been purchased under 40 sale deeds by the KHB. It is

thereafter, on learning the phenomenal increase in the land value

on account of the proposed development by the KHB, that the

petitioners are seeking to make false claims of having been

defrauded and were seeking to question the transactions.

That the KHB has embarked on development of the

purchased land by engaging third-party agencies at substantial

cost and any impediment to the development would result in grave

injury and irreparable loss to the KHB.

It is asserted that the allegations of fraud and deception is

not borne out by the circumstance that the value of the land that

was fixed was well above the guidance value in respect of the land

at the relevant point of time. The allegation as to the agents of the

petitioners having withheld the monies due to them, is a matter

purely between the petitioners and those agents. The allegation of

an unholy nexus between the officials of the KHB and those

agents is far fetched and even if there is any prima facie material

42

in that regard and if it is subject matter of any enquiry, it would be

premature to castigate the concerned, on that basis, in the present

proceedings.

The admitted execution of sale deeds by the land owners

and the receipt of full consideration thereof, several years prior to

the filing of the writ petition would clearly render the present

challenge as one barred by delay and laches. The involvement of

a large number of petitioners would further demonstrate the falsity

of the claim that there was a collective fraud played on them as

being grossly exaggerated and false.

The KHB has by now invested over Rs.110.38 crore in the

formation of the layout and construction activity, the endeavour of

the petitioners in seeking the annulment of the acquisition of the

lands on the specious pleas put forth, if entertained would result in

irreparable loss to the public exchequer.

It is also significant, according to the KHB, that in a second

enquiry conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department,

43

there is no fraud apparent in the execution of the sale deeds in

favour of the KHB, as alleged.

It is also stated that the State Government by its order dated

11.5.2011 (No.VA.E.KHB/191/2011) had provided that all land

owners, whose lands had been purchased or acquired in the

villages of Hiremalligwad, Mummigatti, Kelageri and

Chikkamalligwad would be entitled to house site of the

dimension of 30 feet x 40 feet, free of cost, subject to the

condition that the said land owners had not instituted any further

legal proceedings in respect of the acquisition. It is stated that as

these petitioners have made wild allegations on the one hand and

have also demanded two sites measuring 30’ x 40’, in the place of

one, they are disentitled to any such benefit and that their petition

is also liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, if there

are parallel proceedings addressing the irregularities, if any, in the

above proceedings, the same cannot be addressed in these

44

proceedings, especially if the same have not attained finality.

Hence, the criminality of any action on the part of the officials of

the KHB, including the then Commissioner, KHB or respondents

6 and 7, is not pertinent and cannot be acted upon.

The alleged fraud on the part of the agents, admittedly

engaged by the petitioners, in having ‘short changed’ the

petitioners in retaining a major portion of the sale consideration

and having paid them only a marginal amount of the sale

consideration is entirely a private matter between the petitioners

and their agents and cannot be enquired into in these proceedings.

The legality of the procedure adopted by the respondents in

purchasing the lands of the petitioners is only peripherally

addressed as to the same being in violation of the provisions of the

KHB Act and Rules, the same may not warrant consideration in

view of the substantial delay in the initiation of the proceedings,

the fact that there has been substantial investment of public funds

in the development activity in the interregnum would certainly

45

stay the hands of this court in addressing any alleged irregularity.

However, in so far as the circumstance that the State Government

had voluntarily offered a developed house site measuring 30’ x

40’ to every land owner, who had sold his lands for the project

envisaged, on the condition that there were no further legal

proceedings in respect of the land, possibly including claims for

enhancement of compensation - wherever lands had been acquired

by recourse to acquisition proceedings - and the petitioners now

being denied the same on account of the present proceedings, may

result in the petitioners being denied their just due on account of

the present proceedings possibly being used as a bargaining point

on the basis of legal advise, ill or otherwise. Therefore, subject to

the petitioners undertaking before the respondents that they shall

abide by this order and shall not venture to make any further claim

directly or indirectly, the petitioners may be given the benefit of

the above mentioned Government order dated 20.5.2011 and that

each of them shall be provided with a site in terms of the same.

The petitioners shall be conferred with such benefit forthwith, in

46

any event within a period of six months from the date of this

order, if not earlier.

The writ petitions are dismissed subject to the petitioners

being granted the benefit as directed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nv *

Date post:	23-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

DATED THIS THE 24 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015 BEFORE: THE...

Documents