Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 905 (KAR)

RAJENDRA SHETTY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2018-08-16

DINESH MAHESHWARI, R.DEVDAS

body2018
ORDER : 1. The petitioners are residents of Belle and Kattingeri Villages in the District of Udupi. The petitioners claim to be public spirited citizens engaged in public service and they are before this Court espousing a cause, which according to them is of general public interest. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved that Belle Gram Panchayat which was hitherto within the jurisdiction of Udupi Taluk, is now brought under the newly constituted Kapu Taluk. It is contended that Belle and Kattingeri were very well connected to Udupi and therefore the residents did not want to be brought under the newly formed Kapu Taluk. It is stated that a Taluk Agitation Committee was formed by the residents of Belle Gram Panchayat, to voice the opinion of the residents of the two villages. It is stated that memorandums were given to the concerned Deputy Commissioner and the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka, demanding non-exclusion of the two Villages from Udupi Taluk. 3. It is further contended that inspite of the agitation and repeated requests, by issuance of the impugned notification dated 18.01.2018, the State Government has removed the two Villages from the jurisdiction of Udupi Taluk and included them in the newly constituted Kapu Taluk. 4. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned notification dated 18.01.2018 at Annexure ‘A’. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that inspite of repeated requests of the citizens of the two Villages, the District Administration has failed to take into consideration the genuine demands of the people. The learned counsel further contends that the procedure adopted in passing the impugned notification is not in conformity with the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), inasmuch as Rule 4 and Rule 5 are not followed. It is contended by the learned Counsel that Rule 4 mandates that the proposal to alter the limits of a Taluk or a Village should have been published in the Chavadis or other conspicuous part of the Villages and Rule 5 mandates the Deputy Commissioner to consult the Commissioner of Survey and Settlement before submitting a report to the State Government. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that all the procedures contemplated in the Act and Rules are duly followed and the allegations made by the petitioners do not hold any water. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that all the procedures contemplated in the Act and Rules are duly followed and the allegations made by the petitioners do not hold any water. 6. The power to constitute Talukas or altering their boundaries although statutory, is a matter essentially touching the policy of the State which the Government of the day in its wisdom devises, keeping in view, several factors which are not ordinarily susceptible to judicial review. The Court has to show due deference to the policy decisions of the other branches of the State. Ordinarily, the writ Courts do not intervene in such matters unless glaring errors of higher magnitude are apparent and the collective grievance of the people is legally redressible. When the opinion is formed by the Executive in exercise of statutory power after taking into account all relevant factors, ordinarily, this Court will not upset the same inasmuch as it cannot run a race of opinions with the statutory authority, unless breach of binding rule of conduct is apparent. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, we find that the allegation made by the petitioners as regards failure on the part of the District Administration and the State Government to follow the procedure contemplated under the Rules, is nothing but specious plea. The contention of the petitioners that the proposal was not notified in the Chavadis is proved fallacious, as the learned Additional Government Advocate points out, that the petitioners and many other citizens and organizations did file their objections to the proposal. 8. Insofar as Rule 5 is concerned, whether the Deputy Commissioner has consulted the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements, is obviously a ground raised in desperation. As stated earlier, although the exercise of altering the boundary is a statutory action, these are matters essentially touching the policy of the State. The petitioners have failed to point out any glaring error of a magnitude that may justify interference by this Court. We do not find any ground to entertain this petition in the PIL jurisdiction. 9. However, it is left open for the petitioners to take recourse to appropriate remedies, in accordance with law, in case of any legal grievance existing yet. 10. The petition stands dismissed.