Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 611 (KAR)

Iqbal Ahmed v. State Of Karnataka

2011-06-16

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2011
Judgment :- RE : WP Nos.21150-155/2011 1. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued based on recommendations made whether by a higher authority or a lower authority to a particular authority to whom a mandamus is sought for to grant any government land, on the basis of such recommendations. As to whether the writ petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of 7 guntas of land in Sy.No.28 of Tumkur Taluk, since the year 1965-66 as asserted in the writ petitions or otherwise, are all not matters for examination by this Court at this point of time in writ petitions filed in the year 2011. 2. Whether any government land in unauthorized occupation, requires to be granted in favour of the person in unauthorized occupation to regularize the cultivation is a matter left to the owner of the land – the State Government and on behalf of the State Government such functionaries or the statutory authorities who might have been conferred with such powers. 3. Writ jurisdiction is exercised only in favour of persons who approach this Court with diligence, with bona fides and whose right are affected by some arbitrary, unreasonable, law violating manner of functioning or passing of orders by any administrative authority or a statutory authority. 4. A mandamus can be issued only of the persons seeking the writ have in favour an existing right, either legal in the sense a statutory right or a constitutional right, if is violated, curtailed, curbed or denied by any public authority / the statutory authority to the detriment of the persons who are seeking to exercise their rights and therefore, the writ petitioners are aggrieved. 5. Mandamus can be issued only when such a right is sought to be exercised in a manner known to law and as envisaged and prescribed as per the procedure. 6. 5. Mandamus can be issued only when such a right is sought to be exercised in a manner known to law and as envisaged and prescribed as per the procedure. 6. If persons who have encroached government lands seek to get their unauthorized occupation regularized and if law provides and there are enabling statutory provisions, by all means it is open to such persons to invoke the writ jurisdiction and if there is any dereliction of duty on the part of the statutory authority who has an obligation to examine such applications and if has not examined and then alone this Court can exercise writ jurisdiction calling upon the statutory/administrative authority to answer as to why a writ of mandamus should not be issued, but otherwise a writ of mandamus will not be issued just because of some request is made by some person before any public authority for allowing / considering, some representation made is not disposed of or such relief as sought for is not granted. 7. With the writ petitioners not having shown as to what statutory rights they have in law and in what manner it is violated or denied and such particulars not forthcoming in the present writ petitions, it is not possible for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus nor a writ of certiorari insofar as the action/orders of the Deputy Commissioner or other authorities are concerned. 8. A writ can be issued only in accordance with law when the writ petitioners in unauthorized occupation make good before the court that there is a statutory right which is demanded for action and in a manner envisaged in law and according to procedure as prescribed in the rules. Otherwise no exception can be taken to such orders unless any cause or reason is made out for issue of a writ of certiorari. 9. It is therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed notwithstanding the vehement submissions made by Sri. Otherwise no exception can be taken to such orders unless any cause or reason is made out for issue of a writ of certiorari. 9. It is therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed notwithstanding the vehement submissions made by Sri. Yoga Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioners that even though the petitioners are in occupation of the land for more than 4 to 5 decades and when it is not even disputed that even some authorities had recommended for regularization, taking action for vacating or otherwise of the petitioners from the land in question should not be permitted by issue of an appropriate writ by this court exercising at this stage in writ jurisdiction is not accepted and that too in respect of disputed rights in property matters, which is not the function of the writ court. 10. Grant or otherwise of government land is always in the discretion of the government. A writ court will not compel any government to grant any land. In fact interference will be only when the State is distributing the land in an uneven manner or law violating manner or in an arbitrary manner and while the State starts discriminating from person to person to reign in the state and such acts are brought to the notice of this court by parties who are aggrieved only then state will be directed to act in accordance with law, but writs as a matter of course cannot be issued. It is made clear that this Court neither takes away any rights nor confers any rights which is not otherwise available with them. 11. Reserving such liberty these writ petitions are dismissed leaving the petitioners to work out their rights and remedies elsewhere in accordance with law. RE : WP Nos.21156-157/2011 Petitioner’s grievance in these petitions is alike as to the cause pleaded by the writ petitioners in the above cases (W.P.Nos.21150-21155/2011) and for the very reasons mentioned in the said order, these writ petitions are also dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner’s rights to work out her remedies, if any, elsewhere in accordance with law.