. I CD C) CD L , WCJL C • i. I • L 13 ‘S 00) s I S CD ‘S • • • 3WWQ I LI LI t<)CDCD IS. ci • (nIl Di 0 A) p 3 CD CD • ‘S 1 3 fr I I) CD CDI (5) 1) CD LI ( CD 5 (355)( 5 • LI S (‘S CD) I • H C) I Cs CD CD p 3, C •• CD (3) I —2 Writ Petition is filed praying to quash the order dated 31-12—1986 passed by the third resndent in case No.VPC, Appeal 1/198687 (Annexure-D), This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the fci. lowing: — ORDER The petitioner claims that he and three other persons (Basappa, Murugappa and Malleshapoa) are in possession and enjoyment of a Gramathana land belong ing to Arabilichi Village Panchayat measuring East to West 60 + 30’ and North to South 170’ lying between 2 Sy.No2O1 of Arabilichi Village and K.K. Road (herein after referred to as ‘the disputed land’) from the days yL tq 51 of their grand_father,as manurepit, They allege that the father of respondents 4 and 5 purchased Sy,No,01 in the year 1938 under a sale deed dated 7—6—1938 and in the said sale deed the eastern boundary of the said property is mentioned as manure pit7 that respondents 4 and 5 obtained conversion of one acre in y,No.2Ol (out of the total exent ‘f ° aree 12 gnas, to non sgricuP ira’ purpose in the year 1980 and constructed a rice mill in the said land; and that the said rice mill land lIes to the West of the ee-e disputed ifld, claImed by the petitioner. Petitioner further alleges that resDondents 4 and S startad disturbing th neaneful possession of the disputed iand,after construction of their rice mill; that having failed in their attempts to dislodge the petitioner and others from the said land 0 they filed 0,SJ4o.160/1983 in the Court of the Munsiff, Bhadravathi for declaration ad permanent injunction; that the Civil Court held that respondents 4 and 5 were not the owners of the land and, therefore, dismissed the suit; that the appeal filed by respondents 4 and 5 in R.A.No.5/1983 betore the Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, is still oending; that to overcome the judgment and decree in 0,S.No. 160/1983, respondents 4 and 5 have approached the first respondent for grant of the said land; that petitioner and three others had applied to the second respondent on 6—41g85 (AnnexureB) for rant of the said land; that the first respondent, withoit following e process!and ionorng the application of the petiti ner, directed the second respondent to grant the subject land to respondents 4 and 5, as per his oder aed 14—’198 ha t first respondent issued the said direction on the basis f b report of the Assistant onmisioner, Shimoga; that Assistant Corissioner had not held proper enquiry; and that the second respondent Village Panchayat has not passed any resolution granting the subject land to respondents 4 and 5, Feeling aggrieved by the said r —4— order of the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure—c) the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent under Section 206 of Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act 1959. The said apoeal was dismissed by the third respondent as per order dated 31—12—1986 CAnnexurD), Feeling aggrieved 1 petitioner has filed this petition for quashing Annexure—D. The petitioner has also sought stay of Annexures—C & D pending disposal of the petition and thi Court on 6—2—187 granted interim stay of AnnexuresC and D. 2, Respondents 4 and 5 have filed their objections. t They have contended that the referred to as , the eastern boundary of Sy.No.201 in the sale deed in favour of the father of respondents 4 and S is not the subject land; that the manure pit referred to In the sale deed was situated on the NorthEastern side of Sy.No,201: that neither the petiti)ner nor any one else is in possession of the subject land; that on their aoplication 1 the second respondent had granted the said land to respondents 4 and 5 in the year 1975 and as dircted by the Panchayat they had paid a surr of Rs—720/— towards the value of the subject land on 103I975; that I1c they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land; that possession thereof was absolutely necessary for the purpose of running their rice mill; that the second respondent Panehayat issued a grant certificate on 123—197S (Annewire3) in favour of fourth respondent; that in view of the interference by the petitioner on account of enmity towards respondents 4 and , they filed a suit against petitioner in O,SeNo1EO/193 fcr an injanction; that suit was dismissed on the ground that the subject land still belonged to Arabilichi Village Panchayat as the grant in favour of fourth respondent by the second respondent Panchayat was not withthe prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner as recuired under law; that in view of the decision of the learned Munsiffg without prejudice to the pending appeal, they also applied to the second respondent for regrant after following due procedur; that the second respondent Panchayt accordingly recommended grant to fourth respondent and the papers were sent tothe BD,O nd with his recommendation the matter wa laced before the Assistant ‘‘ommissioner; that the Assistant Commis’ioner after locel inspection found that there was no manure pit in the subject land and recommended grant of the subject land to respondents 4, and that the Deputy Commissioner, Shirnoga after due consideration passed the order dated 14—3—1986 (Annexure-C) granting permission to the second respondent to grant the subject land to fourth respondent and in pursuance of it/, the second respondent passed a resolution dated 1-4—1986 (‘inexure—4) granting the subject land to respondents 4 and that there is no irregularity in the grant and therefore the Divisional Commissioner was justified in rejecting the apDeal filed by the petitioner. 3, The petitioner has made it appear that he was in possession of the subject land and that the same was being used as a manure pitt that he had applied for allotment of the land on 6—4—1985 along with some others and respondents 4 and 5 had also applied for allotment in or about the said time and that grant was made on the permission of the DepLty Commissioner without considering the apolication filed by the petitioner and others for allotment, The cor ect mosition is completely d fferent, Firstly, the subject land is not the manure pit s is evident from the boundaries of the land mentioned in the sale deed extcuted in favour of the father of respondents 4 and B, spondent 4 hnd made an 3pplication for allotment of the subject land situated to the East of e rice mill and having con idered tie S id reliest and having regard to the fact that respondents 4 and 5 had p id a im of t,720/— towards the c s tne ?anchayat granted the said land to respondents 4 and 5 t de grant certificate dated 12 3a19’S (Annexurea 3), AS the Civil Court did not caisder the grant as valid aithout the prior permission of the puty Commissioner, fourth respondent again sought grant and the Village Panchayat recommended grant and soiht pernission of the puty ComriVsmioner, The p ty Corinissiorer having considered the facts and circumstances and the report o tne Assistant Conrniesioner, has rightly granted permission to the Panchayat to grant tne subje t land to spondents and • In fact tne Assistant Corirnisaioner s report clearly showed th there w 5 no anure pit in the sibject land no petitinner was not in possession of the same, It is signifian tha the three other pe sons iho were said to be using the stbject land as manure pit along wIth the petii-ionex, have not joaneo in this petition, In fat 1 the pty mmis ioner has j; L’ r —8— granted permission for grant of the subject land at a price of Rs.75/— per square feet instead of t.720/ earlier paid oy respondent it,4 and as a consequence 0 fourth respondent also paid a sum of .2.1OO/— to the second respondent on 1—4—1986 (vide receipt at Annexure—5) as fid by the Deputy Commissiorr and thereafter the second respondent issued a fresh grant oerti icate dated l—4—186 (Annexurea6), It is thus seen that there is no irregularity in the process of grant me in favour of respondent No.4 nor is there a y irregularity or error on the part of the Deputy Commissioner in givir permission for such grant, The rice mill of respondents 4 and 5 is situated next to the subject land, The inspection report and the documents clearly disclose that the sa e was not being used as a manure pit by the petitioner, but was being ised by the Rice Mill, Having considered tie f ants and circumstances, the Panchayat ed decided to grant the subject land to respondent No.4 and accepting the recoimnendations, the Deputy 0 ommissioner granted permission for such grant. Thereafer the Panctnyat has granted the sbect land to respondents 4 and 5, As no irregularit —9— or infirmity is made out sid as the facts alleged by petit oners are inoorrect I find no r’asor to interfere with Annexure—D, Significantly, the petitiore r has t sought quhing of Annexure—C dated l43—1986. Be that as it ilay. 4, Ir view of the above, the petition is dismissed with costs of ,25O/— payable to responcErts 4 and 5, 1 If’ brr/ujk