Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 501 (KAR)

K. Suresh v. State of Karnataka

2009-07-10

P.D.DINAKARAN, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2009
ORDER V.G. Sabhahit, J: This public interest litigation petition is flied seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ or order or writ of certiorari to quash the notification dated 19.11.2003 issued by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, vide Notification No. VG (Haraju), CRJPrakatana/9/8/9 as per Annexure-E, proceedings of auction dated 3.12.2006 by respondent no.3 as per Annexures-F, G and H; b) Issue direction In the nature of prohibition directing the respondent not to exercise any rights on gomal land or to create any right title and interest under any pretext in respect of Sy. No.1, Block No.3, measuring 1 acre 8 guntas, Block No.6, measuring: 3 acres 29 guntas, Block No.8, measuring 3 acres 10 guntas of Doddabettahaili Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore, and also restore back the property to the public; c) Issue a writ or order or direction or directing respondent No.7 not to change the nature of the land and also not to demolish Hindu temples in respect Sy. No.1, Block No.3, measuring 1 acre 8 guntas Block No.6, measuring 3 acres 29 guntas, Block No.8 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas of Doddabettahally Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore, Doddabettahalli Village, Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore North Taluk, prohibit from further sale confirmation relating to the auction conducted on 3.12.2008 as per notification Annexures-F, G and H; d) Issue writ of mandamus direct an enquiry Central Bureau of Investigation into the scam of auction sale by respondent no. 2 to 3 in favour of respondent no. 7 in respect of land bearing Sy. No.1, Block No.3 Measuring 1 acre 8 guntas block No.6, Measuring 3 acres 29 guntas , Block No.8 Measuring 3 acres 10 guntas of Doddabettahally Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore; e) Issue writ of Mandamus directing respondent no. 5 to register a case against respondent no. 7 for cause of death of three Persons and Several Villagers injured for gross negligence of respondent no. 7 and take appropriate action against respondent no. 7 and also direct respondents 1 to 3 and 7 to pay Compensation of Rs 50,00,000/- to legal heirs of each dead person; and f) Issue grant of appropriate reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and Circumstances of the case, having regard to the issue brought before this Hon'ble High Court Documentary Proof Where the State exchequer has loss of revenue, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner does not seek any personal relief and is only exposing the illegality, indifference and scant respect shown to the rule of law by respondents 1,2 and 3 in the interest of general public at large and in this instant petition where gomal land Comprising old Hindu temples, Houses and a playground for children, has been auctioned in favour of respondent no. 7 for a meager sum, without following the Rule of Law. It is also averred that respondent no. 7 has built a huge wall for to fill mud in the said land. Since it was built property, it collapsed causing injuries to several people in the village and death of 3 persons. The same was carried in Print and electronic media and a compliant is also registered in that regard apart from making a representation to Karnataka State Human Rights Commission high lighting mockery auction that has been conducted favouring respondent no. 7 firm and allowing it to amass huge assets with the aid and assistance of revenue and police authorities, with a request to take action for the death of 3 persons in the village and injuries to several Persons. As no action has been taken despite the compliant being filed by the petitioner and others, this writ petition is filed seeking the above said reliefs. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel far the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing respondents 1 to 6. 4. Learned Counsel far the petitioner reiterated the grounds urged in the writ petition and submitted that the writ petition may be allowed. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that no ground is made out far grant of the reliefs sought far in the interest of public. However, he admitted that a complaint has been registered far the death of 3 persons and injuries to several other an account of the wall collapsing and action will be taken in that regard in accordance with law. 5. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel far the parties and scrutinized the material an record 6. The material on record would clearly show that notification regarding auction of land was issued an 18.8.2008 and auction conducted on 3.12.2008. The writ petition is filed on 4.7.2009. Therefore the petitioner has not approached the Court with due diligence. The material on record would clearly show that notification regarding auction of land was issued an 18.8.2008 and auction conducted on 3.12.2008. The writ petition is filed on 4.7.2009. Therefore the petitioner has not approached the Court with due diligence. Even as per the averments in the petition, auction has been held and the highest bid of respondent no. 7 has been accepted. No. Material is produced before this Court to. Show that auction is without jurisdiction. It is well-Settled that the Deputy Commissioner has power to denotify gomal land and take further steps in respect of such land. Though vague allegations are made about collusion of Government officers with respondent no. 7 in conducting auction the same are not substantiated. The material on record would also. Show that the petition is not filed in public interest and since residents of the village have already given representation regarding illegal sale of property to the Deputy Commissioner who have been duty served an 14.5.2009 as per the acknowledgment produced, it is clear that the Petitioner, without even waiting far consideration of the matter before the authorities, has rushed to this Court by filing this writ petition 4.7.2009 in the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the representation made before the Deputy Commissioner and other authorities at this stage, we do not find any ground to grant the relief sought far. 7. In the result, we hold there is no. merit in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed.