dated this the 24 th day of february 2015 before: the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
BENCH, DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.65387-65396 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.65404-65416 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)
WRIT PETITION Nos.65397-65403 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)
IN W.P. Nos.65387-65396 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)
BETWEEN:
1. Satyappa,
Son of Gangappa Bairannavar,
Age: 70 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
2. Basalingappa,
Son of Gangappa Bairannavar,
Age: 75 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
3. Basappa,
Son of Gangappa Bairannavar,
Age: 65 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
2
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are
residing at Narendra Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
4. Yallappa,
Son of Gangappa Taragar,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
5. Rudrappa,
Son of Channappa Taragar,
Age: 67 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are
Residing at Narendra Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
6. Kallappa,
Son of Basappa Odeyar,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
7. Dyamavva,
Wife of Nagappa Odeyar,
Age: 60 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
8. Basappa,
Son of Nagappa Odeyar,
Age: 65 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
9. Ullavappa,
Son of Nagappa Odeyar,
3
Age: 50 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
10. Somappa,
Son of Nagappa Odeyar,
Age: 47 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
11. Rayappa,
Son of Nagappa Odeyar,
Age: 40 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
12. Basavaa,
Wife of Yallappa Kallur,
Age: 41 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
13. Yallavva,
Wife of Fakirappa Naikar,
Age: 32 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
14. Renuka,
Daughter of Nagappa Odeyar,
Age: 27 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
15. Mallavva,
Wife of Kallappa Odeyar,
Age: 40 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
16. Shivappa,
Son of Siddappa Odeyar,
4
Age: 48 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
17. Hanamantappa,
Son of Siddappa Odeyar,
Age: 47 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
18. Kallappa,
Son of Siddappa Odeyar,
Age: 44 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
19. Yallappa,
Son of Siddappa Odeyar,
Age: 37 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
20. Madivalappa,
Son of Siddappa Odeyar,
Age: 38 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos.6 to 20 are
residing at Hiremalligawad,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
21. Tippavva,
Wife of Dyamappa Dubbadamaradi,
Age: 65 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
22. Shantavva,
Wife of Mallappa Sullad,
Age: 59 years,
5
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos. 21 and 22 are
Residing at Hiremalligawad,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
23. Yallappa,
Son of Shivarudrappa Ganiger,
Age: 62 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Narendra Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
24. Dyamappa,
Son of Basavanteppa Odeyar @
Deogiri,
Since deceased by his
Legal Representatives:
24a) Gangavva,
Wife of Dyamappa Odeyar @ Deogiri,
Age: 80 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
24b) Kasturevve,
Wife of Late Basappa Odeyar @ Deogiri,
Age: 38 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
24c) Kallappa,
Son of Dyamappa Odeyar @ Deogiri,
Age: 58 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
6
24d) Ulavappa,
Son of Dyamappa Odeyar @ Deogiri,
Age: 47 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
25. Veerabhadrayya,
Son of Rudrayya Pujar,
Since deceased by his
Legal Representatives:
25a) Kallavva,
Wife of Veerabhadrayya Pujar,
Age: 47 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
25b) Basayya,
Son of Veerabhadrayya Pujar,
Age: 27 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
25c) Gouravva,
Wife of Gurushiddyya Pujar,
Age: 25 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
25d) Shivayya,
Son of Veerabhadrayya Pujar,
Age: 23 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
26. Charantayya,
Son of Rudrayya Pujar,
Age: 59 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
7
27. Kallayya,
Son of Rudrayya Pujar,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
28. Somayya,
Son of Rudrayya Pujar,
Age: 50 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
29. Channayya,
Son of Rudrayya Pujar,
Age: 45 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
30. Fakirappa,
Son of Yallappa Malligawad,
Age: 65 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
31. Mailarappa,
Son of Yallappa Malligawad,
Age: 62 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
32. Malesh,
Son of Yallappa Malligawad,
Age: 60 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
33. Ningappa,
Son of Yallappa Malligawad,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
8
34. Kallappa,
Son of Ningappa Malligawad,
Age: 25 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
35. Akkavva,
Wife of Hanamantappa
Kalasappanavar,
Age: 58 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
36. Surdevi,
Wife of Mailarappa Burli,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos.24 to 36 are
residing at Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
37. Ningappa,
Son of Bhimsingh Hulagannavar,
Age: 70 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
38. Bhimsingh,
Son of Tamanna Hulagannavar,
Age: 49 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos. 37 and 38
are residing at Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad. …PETITIONERS
(By Shri. V.M.Sheelvant and Smt. Girija S Hiremath, Advocates)
9
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
In charge of Housing,
M.S.Building,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru.
2. Karnataka Lokayukta Bengaluru,
Represented by its Registrar,
Karnataka Lokayukta,
M.S.Building,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru.
3. The Director General of Police,
Carlton Bhavan,
Palace Road,
Bengaluru.
4. The Karnataka Housing Board,
Represented by its
Housing Commissioner,
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bengaluru.
5. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Hubli Division, Chanukyapuri,
Hubli, District: Dharwad.
6. Vijaykumar Kakkayyanavar,
The Executive Engineer,
10
Karnataka Housing Board,
Hubli Division, Chanukyapuri,
Hubli, District Dharwad.
7. S.N.Joshi,
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Hubli Division, Chanukyapuri,
Hubli, District: Dharwad.
… RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. S.C.Jainar, Advocate for Caveator Respondent Nos. 4
and 5;
Smt. K. Vidyavathi, AGA., for Respondent Nos.1 and 3;
Shri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2;
Shri. Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, Advocate for Respondent
No.2;
Shri. V.P.Kulkarni and Shri. H.R.Gundappa, Advocates for
Respondent No.5
Respondent no.7 served;
Shri. G.R.Andanimath, Advocate for Respondent no.6
Shri. V.T.Sonavalkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3
to take appropriate action against the erring officials pursuant to
the enquiry reports vide Annexures-A to D and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.65404-65416 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)
BETWEEN:
1. Raju,
Son of Kallappa Vani,
11
Age: 48 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
2. Satish,
Son of Kallappa Vani,
Age: 44 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
3. Prema,
Wife of Kallappa Vani,
Age: 70 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
4. Nirmala,
Wife of Ishwar Angadi,
Age: 42 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
5. Vidya,
Daughter of Kallappa Vani,
Age: 38 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are
Residing at Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
6. Sahadev,
Son of Tammanna Hulagannavar,
Age: 35 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
7. Fakirappa,
12
Son of Basavaneppa Dharwad,
Age: 69 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
8. Nagappa,
Son of Basavaneppa Dharwad,
Age:66 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
9. Parappa,
Son of Basavaneppa Dharwad,
Age: 60 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
10. Gouravva,
Daughter of Basavaneppa Dharwad,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
11. Mallavva,
Daughter of Basavaneppa Dharwad,
Age: 45 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos. 7 to 11 are
Residing at Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
12. Ninganagouda,
Son of Shiddangouda Patil,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
13
13. Kallappa,
Son of Basappa Metyal,
Age: 65 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
14. Nagappa,
Son of Basappa Metyal,
Age: 60 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
15. Fakirappa,
Son of Basappa Metyal,
Age: 58 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos. 13 to 15 are
Residing at Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
16. Mallanagouda,
Son of Kallanagouda Patil,
Age: 63 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
17. Bhimasingh,
Son of Tammanna Huligannavar,
Age: 49 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
18. Sahadev,
Son of Tammanna Huligannavar,
Age: 35 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
14
Petitioner Nos. 17 and 18 are
Residing at Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
19. Ningappa,
Son of Bhimsingh Hulagannavar,
Age: 70 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
20. Paravva,
Wife of Mallappa Raddigeri,
Age: 71 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
21. Veerupaxi,
Son of Mallappa Raddigeri,
Age: 38 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
22. Irappa,
Son of Parappa Raddigeri,
Age: 56 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos. 20 to 22 are
Residing at Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
23. Fakirappa,
Son of Yallappa Malligawad @
Odeyar, age: 65 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
15
24. Mailarappa,
Son of Yallappa Malligawad @ Odeyar,
Age: 62 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
25. Malesh,
Son of Yallappa Malligawad @ Odeyar,
Age: 60 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
26. Ningappa,
Son of Yallappa Malligawad @ Odeyar,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
27. Kallappa,
Son of Ningappa Malligawad @ Odeyar,
Age: 25 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
28. Akkavva,
Wife of Hanumantappa Kalasappanavar,
Age: 58 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
29. Surdevi,
Wife of Mailarappa Burli,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos. 23 to 29 are
Residing at Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
16
30. Kallamma,
Wife of Kareppa Tegur,
Age: 67 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
31. Smt. Savakka,
Wife of Arjun Hulagannavar,
Age: 65 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
32. Tammanna,
Son of Gangappa Raddigeri,
Age: 52 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Hiremalligawad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri. V.M. Sheelvant, Shri. Vinay S Koujalagi and Smt. Girija
S Hiremath, Advocates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
In charge of Housing,
M.S.Building,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru.
17
2. Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru, represented by its
Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta,
M.S.Building,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru.
3. The Director General of Police,
Carlton Bhavan, Palace Road,
Bengaluru.
4. The Karnataka Housing Board,
Represented by its Housing Commissioner,
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bengaluru.
5. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Hubli Division, Chanukyapuri,
Hubli, District Dharwad.
6. Vijaykumar Kakkayyanavar,
The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Hubli Division,
Chanukyapuri, Hubli,
District Dharwad.
7. S.N.Joshi,
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Hubli Division, Chanukyapuri,
Hubli, District Dharwad. …RESPONDENTS
18
(By Shri. S.C.Jainar, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent Nos. 4
and 5;
Smt. K. Vidyavathi, AGA., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3;
Shri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2;
Shri. V.T.Sonvalkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2;
Shri. Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, Advocate for Respondent
No.2;
Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 served;
Shri. H.R.Gundappa, Advocate for Respondent No.5)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3
to take appropriate action against the erring officials pursuant to
the enquiry reports vide Annexures-A to D and etc;
IN W.P.Nos.65397-65403 OF 2011 (LA-KHB)
BETWEEN:
1. Irappa,
Son of Mallappa Kallyanavar,
Age: 72 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Resident of Kelgeri Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
2. Mailarappa,
Son of Adiveppa Kallyanavar,
Age: 51 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
3. Ningappa,
Son of Adiveppa Kallyanavar,
Age: 46 years,
19
Occupation: Agriculturist,
4. Basappa,
Son of Adiveppa Kallyanavar,
Age: 40 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
5. Mallappa,
Son of Adiveppa Kallyanavar,
Age: 38 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
6. Neelavva,
Wife of Yallappa Kundargi,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
7. Mallavva,
Wife of Amrut Kundargi,
Age: 52 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos.2 to 7 are
Residing at Kelgeri Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
8. Shankar,
Son of Dattu Ballenvar,
Age: 60 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
9. Meenaxi,
Wife of Shankar Ballenvar,
Age: 54 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
20
Petitioner Nos. 8 and 9 are
Residing at Kelgeri Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
10. Paravva,
Wife of Mallappa Raddigeri,
Age: 71 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
11. Veerupaxi,
Son of Mallappa Raddigeri,
Age: 38 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
12. Irappa,
Son of Parappa Raddigeri,
Age: 56 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos. 10 to 12 are
Residing at Kelgeri Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
13. Ramchandra A Uchchil,
Age: 70 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
14. Rajeevalochan,
Son of Timmappa Hegde,
Age: 69 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
15. Jyoti,
Wife of Rajeevalochan Hegde,
21
Age: 64 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
16. Chetan,
Son of Ramesh Sangal,
Age: 47 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
17. Rupeesh,
Son of Ramesh Sangal,
Age: 37 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
18. Vijay,
Son of Krishna Paikoti,
Age: 46 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos. 13 to 18 are
Residing at Kelageri Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
19. Irappa,
Son of Balappa Malligwad,
Age: 70 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
20. Ningappa,
Son of Balappa Malligwad,
Age:68 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
21. Smt. Nilavva,
Wife of Hanamant Arennavar,
Age: 30 years,
22
Occupation: Agriculturist,
22. Maruti,
Son of Shankreppa Malligwad,
Age: 25 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
23. Shekappa,
Son of Balappa Malligwad,
Age: 55 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
24. Kumar. Suvarna,
Daughter of Shivappa Malligwad,
Age: 17 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
25. Kumar. Santosh,
Son of Shivappa Malligwad,
Age: 15 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
26. Kumar. Ramesh,
Son of Shivappa Malligwad,
Age: 12 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioners No.24 to 26,
Since minor and represented by
their minor guardian petitioner No.23
Petitioner Nos. 19 to 26 are
Residing at Chikkamalligwad Village,
Taluk and District Dharwad.
23
27. Smt. Shivavva,
Wife of Basappa Malligwad,
Age: 65 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
28. Smt. Yallavva,
Wife of Birappa Kittur,
Age: 43 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
29. Smt. Paravva,
Wife of Basappa Dubbadmaradi,
Age: 40 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
Petitioner Nos. 27 to 29 are
Residing at Kelgeri,
Taluk and District Dharwad. …PETITIONERS
(By Shri. V.M.Sheelvant, Shri. F.V.Patil, Smt.Girija S Hiremath
and Shri. Vinay S Koujalagi, Advocates)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
In charge of Housing,
M.S.Building,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru.
2. Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru, represented by its
Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta,
M.S.Building,
24
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru.
3. The Director General of Police,
Carlton Bhavan, Palace Road,
Bengaluru.
4. The Karnataka Housing Board,
Represented by its Housing Commissioner,
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bengaluru.
5. The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Hubli Division, Chanukyapuri,
Hubli, District Dharwad.
6. Vijaykumar Kakkayyanavar,
The Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Hubli Division,
Chanukyapuri, Hubli,
District Dharwad.
7. S.N.Joshi,
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Hubli Division, Chanukyapuri,
Hubli, District Dharwad.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. K. Vidyavathi, AGA., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3;
Shri. Jagadish Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2;
Shri. Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, Advocate for Respondent
No.2;
25
Shri. V.T.Sonvalkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2;
Shri. S.C.Jainar, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent Nos. 4 and 5;
Shri. H.R.Gundappa, Advocate for Respondent No.5
Respondent No.6 served;
Shri. M.B.Mattur, Advocate for Respondent No.7)
*****
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3
to take appropriate action against the erring officials pursuant to
the enquiry reports vide Annexures-A to D and etc;
These petitions having been heard and reserved on
18.12.2014 at Dharwad Bench, Dharwad and coming on for
pronouncement of Orders at the Principal Bench, Bengaluru, this
day, the Court delivered the following:-
ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the
petitioners are all similarly placed and have preferred the petitions
on identical grounds.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of
Hiremalligwad, Kelageri and Chikkamalligwad villages of
Dharwad taluk, Dharwad District, ironically in the vicinity of this
court’s premises of the Dharwad Bench. The brief particulars of
26
the lands belonging to each of the petitioners, of the respective
village, is mentioned hereunder in tabular form.
Sl.
No.
Writ Petition
Name of the land
owners
Extent Village Block
No.
I 65404-
416/2011
1.Raju Kallappavani
2.Sathish
Kallappavani
3. Prema
C/o Kallappavani
4. Nirmala
C/o.Eshwara Angadi
5. Vidya,
Daughter of
Kallappavani
5 acres
18guntas
(including
6 guntas of
Phot kharab)
Hiremalligawada
29
Sahadev Tammanna
Hulagannavar
(a) 21 guntas
Vide sale
deed dated
18.7.2006
(b) 1 acres
13 guntas
Vide sale
deed dated
13.11.2006
Hiremalligawada
Hiremalligawada
32
17
1. Fakirappa, son of
Basavaneppa
Dharwad
2. Nagappa, son of
Basavanneppa
Dharwad
3.Parappa,son of
Basavanneppa
Dharawad
(a) 9 guntas
(b) 1 acre 17
guntas
21
25
27
4.Gowravva daughter
of Basavanneppa
Dharawad
5.Mallavva daughter
of Basavanneppa
Dharawad
under two
separate sale
deeds
1. Kallanagouda, son
of Ningana gouda
Patil,
2. Ninganagouda s/o
Siddanagouda Patil,
3. Shantavva C/o
Fakiragouda Patil,
3 acre 6
guntas
Hiremalligawada
38
1. Kallappa,
Son of Basappa
Metyala
2. Nagappa, S/o
Basappa Metyala
3. Fakira, S/o
Basappa Metyala
9 acre 4
guntas
Hiremalligawada
42/P2
Mallanagouda
Kallanagouda Patil
4 acre 27
guntas
Hiremalligawada
40
1.Gadigeppa
Tammanna
Hulagannavara,
2.Bhimasingh
Tammanna
Hulagannavar,
3.Sahadeva
Tammanna
Hulagannavar
2 acres 16
guntas
Hiremalligawada
17
Ningappa
Bheemasingha
Hulagannavar
3 acres 34
guntas
Hiremalligawada
17
28
1.Fakirappa, son of
Yallappa Wodeyar
2. Ningappa, s/o
Yallappa Wodeyar,
by Muktiar Kallappa,
S/o Ningappa
Wodeyar
3. Mylarappa,
S/o Yallappa
Wodeyar
4. Mallappa S/o
Yallappa Wodeyar
5. Mahadevi, C/o
Mylarappa Burli
6. Akkawwa,
C/o Hanumantappa
Kalasappa
(a) 2 acres
38 guntas
under sale
deed dated
27.1.2007.
(b) 5 acres
under sale
deed dated
12.1.2007
Hiremalligawada
10
9
1.Fakirappa son of
Yallappa
Malligavada
2. Mylarappa s/o
Yallappa Malligawad
3. Malesh s/o
Yallappa Malligawad
4.Ningappa s/o
Yallappa Malligawad
5. Akkavva c/o
Hanamantappa
Kalasappanavar
6. Suradevi c/o
Mylarappa Burli
9 acres
Hiremallegawada
42
Kallamma C/o
Kareppa Tegur
30 guntas Hiremallegawada 27
Late Arjunappa, by
legal representatives
i. Smt. Savakka c/o
Arjuna
Hulagannavara
ii.Neelavva d/o
Arjuna Hulagannavar
iii.Hulagevva c/o
(a)22guntas
(b)32guntas
Total 1 acre
14 guntas
Hiremalligawada 32
17
29
Erappa Kavalikai
Gangappa son of
Parappa Raddigeri by
his Muktiyar
Tammanna s/o
Gangappa Raddigere
1 acre 33
guntas
Hiremalligawada 23
i.Virupakshi son of
Mallappa Raddigeri
ii.Basavva d/o
Mallappa Raddigere
3.Paravva c/o
Mallappa Raddigeri
4. Erappa s/o
Parappa Raddigeri
3 acres 25
guntas
Hiremalligawada 23
II 65397-
65403/2011
Erappa son of
Mallappa Kallaiah
4 acres Kelageri 684
1.Mylarappa
Adiveppa
Kallaiahnavara
2. Ningappa
Adiveppa
Kallaiahnavara
3. Basappa Adiveppa
Kallaiahnavara
4. Mallappa
Adiveppa
Kallaiahnavara
5.Basavannevva C/o.
Adiveppa
Kallaiahnavara
6. Neelavva C/o.
Yellappa Kundaragi
7. Mallavva C/o.
Amrutha Kundaragi
4 acres
Kelageri
684
1. Shankara son of
Dattu Ballenavara
2. Meenakshi C/o.
Shankara
2 acres 20
guntas
2 acres 20
guntas
Kelageri 685
30
Ballenavara
Total
5 acres
1. Virupakshi son of
Mallappa Raddigeri
2. Basavva daughter
of Mallappa
Raddigeri
3. Paravva C/o.
Mallappa Raddigeri
4. Erappa son of
Parappa Raddigeri
6 acres 37
guntas
Kelageri 686
1. Vikrama, son of
Ramachandra
Uchhila
2. Sameera, son of
Ramachandra
Uchhila,
3.Veda, son of
Ramachandra
Uchhila,
4. Brijesha son of
Ramachandra
Uchhila,
5. Sanjeeta son of
Rajeevalochana
Hegde by Muktiyar
Sri Rajeevalochana
son of Timmappa
Hegde
6. Jyothi C.\/o.
Rajeevalochana
Hegde
7. Chetana son of
Ramesh Shingaala
8. Roopesha son of
Ramesh Shingala
9. Vijaya son of
Krishna Paikoti
13 acres 23
guntas
Kelageri
677
1. Erappa Balappa
Malligawada
2. Ningappa Balappa
Malligawada
5 acres
Chikkamallig
-wada
215
31
3. Neelavva C/o.
Hanumantha
Arennavara
4.Maruti Shankrappa
Malligawada
5.Shekappa Balappa
Malligawada
6. Renavva C/o.
Channabasappa
Harakuni
[.Kumari. Suvarna,
daughter of Shivappa
Malligawada
8.Kumar Santhosh
son of Shivappa
Malligawada
Kumar Ramesh, son
of Shivappa
Malligawada ]
Since minors, by
their guardian
Shri. Shekappa
Balappa
Malligawada
1. Shivavva C/o.
Basappa
Malligawada
2. Yellavva C/o.
Beerappa Kittura
3. Paravva C/o.
Basappa
Dubbanamaradi
5 acres
Chikkamalligawada
215
III 65387-
65396/2011
1. Basappa son of
Gangappa
Bairannavara
2. Basalingappa son
of Gangappa
Bairannavara
3.Satyappa son of
Gangappa
Bairannavara by their
19 acres 19
guntas
Hiremalligawada 41/P1
32
Muktiar
Bharath Kumar
Parishappa Sheri
Yallappa son of
Gangappa Taragar by
his Muktiar Prakash
S/o Ravajappa
Sonawalkar
4 acres 16
guntas
Hiremalligawada
48
Rudrappa son of
Channappa Taragara
by his Muktiar
Prakash S/o
Ravajappa
Sonawalkar
4 acres
Hiremalligawada
11
1. Kallappa son of
Basappa Wodeyar
2. Dyamavva C/o.
Nagappa Wodeyar
3. Basappa
4. Hulavappa
5. Somappa
6. Rayappa son of
Nagappa Wodeyar
7. Basavva C/o.
Yellappa Kallur
8. Yellavva C/o.
Fakirappa Naikara
9. Renuka daughter
of Nagappa Wodeyar
10. Bheemappa son
of Shivappa
Wodeyar
11. Mallavva C/o.
Kallappa Wodeyar
12. Shivappa
13.Hanumanthappa
14. Kallappa
15. Yellappa
16. Madivalappa son
of Siddappa
Wodeyar
1 acre
19guntas
Hiremalligawada 14
33
By their Muktiyar
Lingaraja S/o
Basavanneppa Patil
1. Kallappa son of
Basappa Wodeyar
2. Dyamavva C/o.
Nagappa Wodeyar
3. Basappa, son of
Nagappa Wodeyar
4. Hulavappa, son of
Nagappa Wodeyar
5. Somappa, son of
Nagappa Wodeyar
6. Rayappa son of
Nagappa Wodeyar
7. Basavva C/o.
Yellappa Kallur
8. Yellavva C/o.
Fakirappa Naikara
9. Renuka daughter
of Nagappa Wodeyar
10. Yellavva C/o.
Kallappa Wodeyar
11. Shivappa son of
Siddappa Wodeyar
12.Hanumanthappa
son of Siddappa
Wodeyar
13. Kallappa son of
Siddappa Wodeyar
14. Yallappa son of
Siddappa Wodeyar
15. Madivalappa son
of Siddappa
Wodeyar
By their Muktiyar
Lingaraja S/o
Basavanneppa Patil
6 acres 30
guntas
Hiremalligawada
16
1. Tippavva c/o.
Dyamappa
2 acres 12
guntas
Hiremalligawada 9
34
Dubbadamaradi
2. Shantavva C/o.
Mallappa Sullada
By their Muktiyar
Shekargouda s/o
Basanagouda Patil
1 acre 12
guntas
Total 3 acres
24 guntas
10
Yallappa son of
Shivarudrappa
Ganigera by his
Muktiyar Lingaraja
s/o Basavanneppa
Patil
6 acres 20
guntas
Hiremalligawada 31
Dyamappa son of
Basavantappa
Wodeyara
By his Mukthiyar
Lingaraja son of
Basavanneppa Patil
5 acres 12
guntas
Hiremallinawada 32
1. Veerabhadraiah
2. Charantaiah
3. Kallaiah
4. Somaiah
5. Channaiah
By Muktiar Komal
s/o Padamappa
Jinagonda
8 acres 19
guntas
Hiremalligawada 15
1. Fakirappa son of
Yallappa
Malligawada
2. Mylarappa son of
Yallappa
Malligawada
3. Maalesha sonof
Yallappa
Malligawada
4. Ningappa son of
Yallappa
Malligawada
5. Akkavva C/o.
Hanumanthappa
6 acres
3 acre
Total 9 acres
Hiremalligawada 42/P1
42/P2
35
Kalasappanavara
6. Suradevi c/o.
Mailappa Burli
By Muktiar Komal
s/o Padamappa
Jinagonda
1. Ningappa son of
Bheemasingh
Hulagannavara
2. Bheemasingh
sonof Tammanna
Hulagannavara
By their Muktiar
Shivappa Babu Goni.
2 acres 26
guntas
21 guntas
Total 3 acre
7 guntas
Hiremalligawada
32
It transpires that the Karnataka Housing Board, (Hereinafter
referred to as ‘the KHB’, for brevity) a body established under the
Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962, (Hereinafter referred to as
‘the KHB Act’, for brevity), is said to have formulated a Scheme
to develop a housing layout in the lands bearing Survey nos.7 to
49 of Hiremalligwad village. The said lands are in close
proximity to the National Highway no.4, the Pune – Bangalore
Road; The lands are said to be at a distance of about 10 KM from
Dharwad City.
It is alleged that the acquisition process was not preceded
by any public notification or even personal notices to the land
36
owners aforementioned. It is stated that the sub-ordinate officials
of the KHB had conducted a spot inspection of the lands lead by
the Executive Engineer, KHB and the Assistant Commissioner,
Dharwad District, but they had not revealed the purpose of the
spot inspection. However, it is learnt that certain persons acting as
middlemen, who claimed to have the confidence of the land
owners are said to have had discussions with the said officials as
regards an expeditious and voluntary sale of the lands by the land
owners. It is particularly alleged that respondents 6 and 7 in
particular, who are said to be the then Executive Engineer and
Assistant Executive Engineer of the KHB, and who were acting in
their self interest to benefit from the proposed transactions, had
acted in close concert with several middlemen, in persuading the
land owners to appoint the said middlemen as their agents and
power of attorney holders to transact with the KHB, in order to
ostensibly obtain a better price for their lands. However, it is the
case of the petitioners that they were misled by the said agents
who succeeded in taking all the petitioners into confidence,
37
en masse, to part with their lands for a paltry sum, only to enable
the middlemen and officials of the KHB, particularly respondents
6 and 7 to make illegal gains, at the cost of the petitioners.
When the petitioners realized the fraud played on them, in
retrospect, they are said to have approached the second respondent
with a complaint with regard to the manner in which they had
been deprived of their lands. On the basis of the said complaint,
respondent no.2 is said to have directed respondent no.3 to hold an
enquiry under Section 15(3)(a) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act,
1984. An enquiry having been conducted, a report was said to
have been submitted clearly implicating respondents no.6 and 7
in having acted through middlemen, in inducing the petitioners to
part with their lands for a paltry sum, in order to make illegal gain
for themselves. The matter is said to have been forwarded to the
Police for further action. However, even as on the date of filing of
these petitions, no action is said to have been taken by the Police.
38
3. The learned counsel Shri V.M. Sheelavanth, Shri F.V.
Patil, Shri Vinay S. Koujalagi and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath
appearing for the petitioners, would contend that there are clear
findings in the enquiry report based on the enquiry conducted at
the behest of the Lokayukta, regarding the purchase of lands
through middlemen by playing fraud on the petitioners by the
KHB. The said transactions are violative of Section 33(1) of the
KHB Act. In that, for purchase of lands exceeding Rs.10 lakh in
value, the previous approval of the State Government was
mandatory. It is evident on record that there was no such approval
in respect of lands of Chikkamalligwad, Kelageri and Mummigatti
villages.
It is further contended that there are also guidelines for the
purchase of lands by the KHB, which have been completely given
a go by. It is stated that on 28.12.2005, a meeting of the District
Land Conveyance Committee is said to have been held under the
Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District. It
39
is alleged that Respondents no.6 and 7, without intimation of the
meeting to the petitioners, had kept their accomplices, who were
acting as purported agents of the present petitioners and a price of
Rs.5.75 lakh per acre was said to have been fixed as the price for
the lands in question. However, the lands in question had been
sold by the power of attorney holders for that price, who had also
received payment by account payee cheques in their personal
names. However, the land owners were given less than half that
amount by the said middlemen, as was discovered at the enquiry
conducted. And it was in such a similar fashion an extent of
more than 300 acres of land was sold and approval of the State
Government was also said to have been obtained in so far as
Hiremalligwad village is concerned. It is however, significant that
even though there was no such approval of the State Government
seen to have been obtained in respect of Kelageri and other
villages are concerned, sale deeds were said to have been executed
by the middlemen who had also received payment from the KHB
in a similar manner as aforesaid in their own names.
40
The enquiry report at the behest of the Lokayukta has found
that Respondent no.6, who was assigned the task of issuing public
notices in respect of the proposed acquisition and purchase of
lands meant for the housing project, had failed to issue any such
public notices. Similarly, there was no intimation to the true
owners of the lands as regards the price fixation Committee
meeting and the price having been fixed at Rs.5.75 lakh, the
petitioners have neither received the same nor was awarded the
appropriate compensation.
4. The KHB has contested the petition to deny the
allegations in the writ petitions. It is claimed that the petitioners
had voluntarily offered their lands for sale. The price of the land
was admittedly fixed at a meeting of the Committee headed by the
Deputy Commissioner of the District, which had been accepted by
the KHB and duly approved by the State Government as per Order
dated 24.5.2006.
41
Between the period 1.6.2006 and 15.3.2007, about 206
acres had been purchased under 40 sale deeds by the KHB. It is
thereafter, on learning the phenomenal increase in the land value
on account of the proposed development by the KHB, that the
petitioners are seeking to make false claims of having been
defrauded and were seeking to question the transactions.
That the KHB has embarked on development of the
purchased land by engaging third-party agencies at substantial
cost and any impediment to the development would result in grave
injury and irreparable loss to the KHB.
It is asserted that the allegations of fraud and deception is
not borne out by the circumstance that the value of the land that
was fixed was well above the guidance value in respect of the land
at the relevant point of time. The allegation as to the agents of the
petitioners having withheld the monies due to them, is a matter
purely between the petitioners and those agents. The allegation of
an unholy nexus between the officials of the KHB and those
agents is far fetched and even if there is any prima facie material
42
in that regard and if it is subject matter of any enquiry, it would be
premature to castigate the concerned, on that basis, in the present
proceedings.
The admitted execution of sale deeds by the land owners
and the receipt of full consideration thereof, several years prior to
the filing of the writ petition would clearly render the present
challenge as one barred by delay and laches. The involvement of
a large number of petitioners would further demonstrate the falsity
of the claim that there was a collective fraud played on them as
being grossly exaggerated and false.
The KHB has by now invested over Rs.110.38 crore in the
formation of the layout and construction activity, the endeavour of
the petitioners in seeking the annulment of the acquisition of the
lands on the specious pleas put forth, if entertained would result in
irreparable loss to the public exchequer.
It is also significant, according to the KHB, that in a second
enquiry conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department,
43
there is no fraud apparent in the execution of the sale deeds in
favour of the KHB, as alleged.
It is also stated that the State Government by its order dated
11.5.2011 (No.VA.E.KHB/191/2011) had provided that all land
owners, whose lands had been purchased or acquired in the
villages of Hiremalligwad, Mummigatti, Kelageri and
Chikkamalligwad would be entitled to house site of the
dimension of 30 feet x 40 feet, free of cost, subject to the
condition that the said land owners had not instituted any further
legal proceedings in respect of the acquisition. It is stated that as
these petitioners have made wild allegations on the one hand and
have also demanded two sites measuring 30’ x 40’, in the place of
one, they are disentitled to any such benefit and that their petition
is also liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, if there
are parallel proceedings addressing the irregularities, if any, in the
above proceedings, the same cannot be addressed in these
44
proceedings, especially if the same have not attained finality.
Hence, the criminality of any action on the part of the officials of
the KHB, including the then Commissioner, KHB or respondents
6 and 7, is not pertinent and cannot be acted upon.
The alleged fraud on the part of the agents, admittedly
engaged by the petitioners, in having ‘short changed’ the
petitioners in retaining a major portion of the sale consideration
and having paid them only a marginal amount of the sale
consideration is entirely a private matter between the petitioners
and their agents and cannot be enquired into in these proceedings.
The legality of the procedure adopted by the respondents in
purchasing the lands of the petitioners is only peripherally
addressed as to the same being in violation of the provisions of the
KHB Act and Rules, the same may not warrant consideration in
view of the substantial delay in the initiation of the proceedings,
the fact that there has been substantial investment of public funds
in the development activity in the interregnum would certainly
45
stay the hands of this court in addressing any alleged irregularity.
However, in so far as the circumstance that the State Government
had voluntarily offered a developed house site measuring 30’ x
40’ to every land owner, who had sold his lands for the project
envisaged, on the condition that there were no further legal
proceedings in respect of the land, possibly including claims for
enhancement of compensation - wherever lands had been acquired
by recourse to acquisition proceedings - and the petitioners now
being denied the same on account of the present proceedings, may
result in the petitioners being denied their just due on account of
the present proceedings possibly being used as a bargaining point
on the basis of legal advise, ill or otherwise. Therefore, subject to
the petitioners undertaking before the respondents that they shall
abide by this order and shall not venture to make any further claim
directly or indirectly, the petitioners may be given the benefit of
the above mentioned Government order dated 20.5.2011 and that
each of them shall be provided with a site in terms of the same.
The petitioners shall be conferred with such benefit forthwith, in
46
any event within a period of six months from the date of this
order, if not earlier.
The writ petitions are dismissed subject to the petitioners
being granted the benefit as directed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nv *