Smt. Siddibai and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The learned Government Advocate to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

The petitioners are seeking for issue of mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to consider the petitioners applications produced vide Annexures ''A'' to ''A50'' for their respective portions of the land in Sy. No. l8 of N. Ganadagatte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District

The case of the petitioners is that they are in cultivation of different extents of land in the said survey number and in respect of the such cultivation, they have sought for regularisation by filing Form No. 50 in respect of each of the petitioners, copy of Form No. 50 is produced at Annexures ''A'' to ''A50''.

The case of the petitioners is that though it was indicated that the matter would be considered by placing it before the Committee, the same has not been considered and disposed of till now. The petitioners also place reliance on the order dated 25.01.2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 21134/2005, wherein in similar set of circumstances, this Court had directed the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to hold appropriate enquiry and consider and dispose of the applications for regularisation in accordance with law. The petitioners further contend that keeping in view such directions, the petitioners have made representations to the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 on 19.12.2008 which are at Annexures ''E'' and ''E1''. The grievance is that despite the same, the applications have not been considered and disposed of.

The learned Government Advocate would state that firstly, the veracity of the applications would have to be verified by the authorities and after the same, further process with regard to possession, mahazar and sketch will have to be considered and only thereafter, if the same is found to be in order, the Committee would consider the applications in accordance with law.

In the light of what has been stated and considering the fact that in an earlier writ petition, this Court had issued a direction to hold enquiry and in the present circumstances, except the endorsement stating that the matter had been processed further to be considered by the Committee, there is nothing on record to show that the applications filed by the petitioners have been disposed of. Hence the respondents would have to be directed to process the applications of the petitioners after considering the veracity and the correctness of the applications, if the same have been filed in accordance with law.

In this regard, respondent No. 6 shall take steps to consider these aspects of the matter and thereafter place the applications before respondent Nos. 7 and 8, if they are found to be in order. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 shall hold enquiry in accordance with law as directed in the earlier writ petition and thereafter dispose of the applications in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that till the applications are considered and disposed of, the status-quo with regard to possession which exists as on today shall be retained.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.