1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

WRIT PETITION Nos.64080-131/2012 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. JAYAMMA MASANAKATTI W/O. PAKIRAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS,

2. SMT.YESHODHA MASANAKATTI W/O. HEMAPPA AGE: 34 YEARS,

3. SMT.YELLAVVA DURGER W/O. MALLAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS,

4. SMT.YELLAVVA HELVAR W/O. HONNAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS,

5. SMT.KAVITH MASANAKATTI W/O.LINGAPPA AGE: 34 YEARS,

6. SMT.PAKIRAVVA W/O.LINGAPPA AGE: 54 YEARS,

7. SMT.PARAVVA RODNAVAR W/O. SHIVAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS,

8. SMT.RATHNAVVA VADDAMMANVAR W/O. MALLERAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS,

9. SMT.RATHNAVVA HELAVAR W/O. LINGAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, 2

10. SMT.RUDRAVVA MASANAKATTI W/O. GANGAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS,

11. SMT.RADHA AKKUR W/O. MALLAPPA AGE: 44 YEARS,

12. SMT.RAMAVVA HELAVAR W/O. MADEVAPPA AGE: 44 YEARS,

13. SMT.RAMAVVA RODANVAR W/O. LATE VIRUPAXAPPA AGE: 55 YEARS,

14. SMT.RAMAVVA GIDDALLI W/O.LATE MALLERAPPA AGE: 60 YEARS,

15. SMT.REKHA CHIKKONTHI W/O. GUDDAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS,

16. SMT.RENUKAVVA DURGER W/O. MALLAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS,

17. SMT.RENUKA MASANAKATTI W/O. CHANDRAPPA AGE: 37 YEARS,

18. SMT.GIRIJAVVA KONDOOR W/O. PAKIRAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS,

19. SMT.GIRIJAVVA GIDDALLI W/O. MALATESH AGE: 40 YEARS,

20. SMT.GIRIJAVVA VADDAMMANAVAR W/O. BASAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS,

21. SMT.BASAVANNEVVA GIDDALLI W/O.MALLIKAPPA AGE:45 YEARS,

22. SMT.BARMAVVA CHOUDANNAVAR W/O. BASAPPA AGE:55 YEARS,

23. SMT.NANDINI MASANAKATTI W/O. SHANMUKHA AGE: 27 YEARS, 3

24. SMT.NANJAVVA HULAGANNAVAR W/O. JAYAPPA AGE: 46 YEARS,

25. SMT.MALLAVVA MASANAKATTI D/O. LATE GUDDAPPA AGE: 54 YEARS,

26. SMT.MALLAVVA HOLGER W/O LATE MALERAPPA AGE: 52 YEARS,

27. SMT.MADEVAKKA CHIKKALLI W/O. MALLAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS,

28. SMT.SHAKUNTHA CHIKKVONATHI W/O. PALAKSHI AGE: 40 YEARS,

29. SMT.SHARADAVVA TORUR @ HELAVAR W/O SHEKAPPA, AGE: 40 YEARS,

30. SMT.SHARADAVVA VADDAMMANAVAR W/O. NILAPPA AGE: 55 YEARS,

31. SMT.SHANTHAVVA MASANAKATTI W/O. NANJAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS,

32. SMT.SHANAVVA AKKUR W/O. MALLERAPPA

33. SMT.SHANAVVA HELAVAR W/O. BASAVARAJ AGE: 43 YEARS,

34. SMT.SHUBAVVA CHIKKONATHI W/O. NILIGIRAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS,

35. SMT.SHIVALEELA HULAGANNAVAR W/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGE: 30 YEARS,

36. SMT.GANGAMALAVVA MASANAKATTI W/O.LATE MALLAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS,

37. SMT.GANGAMALAVVA MASANAKATTI W/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS, 4

38. SMT.GANGAVVA RODNAVAR W/O. SHEKAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS,

39. SMT.GANGAVVA MASANAKATTI W/O. NEELAPPA AGE: 44 YEARS,

40. SMT.GANGAVVA MASANAKATTI W/O. KARIBASAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS,

41. SMT.SUDHA CHATRADA W/O. JAGADEESH AGE: 35 YEARS,

42. SMT.SAVAKKA HELAVAR W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS,

43. SMT.HANUMAVVA HULAGANNANVAR W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA AGE: 30 YEARS,

44. SMT.GEETHA MASANAKATTI W/O. ASHOK AGE: 40 YEARS,

45. SMT.NIRMALA RODNAVAR W/O. MALTHESH AGE: 35 YEARS,

46. SMT.NIRMALA VADDAMMANAVAR W/O. NANJAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS,

47. SMT.LINGAVVA RODNAVAR W/O. BASAPPA AGE: 55 YEARS,

48. SMT.NEELAVVA VALAGERI W/O. MANJAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS,

49. SMT.GOURAVVA MASANAKATTI W/O. BASAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS,

50. SMT.GOURAVVA MASANAKATTI W/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS,

51. SMT.GOURAVVA AKKUR W/O. MUKHAPPA AGE: 31 YEARS, 5

52. SMT.GOURAVVA AKKUR W/O. BASAVARAJ AGE: 35 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/O. SOMASAGAR VILLAGE, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: . … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR RODNAVAR AND SRI.P.G.CHIKKANARAGUND, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

2. SRI.C.M. UDAASI HONBLE MINISTER FOR PWD GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJEEVA GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., SY. NO. 205, OPP. BEEDI WORKERS COLONY, KIMMGHATTA ROAD, BENDEMATH, KENGERI, SUB URBAN, BANGALORE.

4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, HAVERY AND EX. OFFICIO DIRECTOR, RAJEEV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., HAVERI.

5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, HANGAL DIST: HAVERI.

6. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SOMASAGAR 6

TQ: HANGAL,DIST: HAVERI.

7. CHAIRMAN GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SOMASAGARA, HANGAL, TQ: HANGAL,DIST: HAVERI.

8. SMT.ANSAVAKKA W/O NINGAPPA MASANAKATTI AGE:48 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

9. SMT.KARIYAVVA W/O GUNDAPPA HULAGANNAVAR AGE:41 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

10. SMT.KASTURAVVA W/O SHAMBANNA CHIKKALLI AGE:42 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

11. SMT.CHINNAMMA W/O NAGARAJ CHOUDANNAVAR AGE:30 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

12. SMT.NEELAVVA W/O NAGAPPA AKKUR, AGE:41 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

13. SMT.BHUVANESHWARI W/O SUBHASAPPA MASANAKATTI AGE:31 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

14. MAHADEVAPPA W/O NEELAGIRIYAPPA CHIKKONTHI AGE:51 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

15. SMT.MALINGAVVA W/O NEELAPPA MASANAKATTI AGE:43 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

16. SMT.RATNAVVA W/O MUKAPPA MASANAKATTI AGE:49 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

17. SMT.RATNAVVA W/O BASAPPA RITTI @ HELVAR AGE:49 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

18. RAMAPPA W/O MADEVAPPA HELVAR AGE:43 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

19. SMT.RENUKAVVA W/O MAHADEVAPPA AKKUR AGE:48 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

20. SMT.RENUKAVVA W/O RAMAPPA CHOUDANNAVAR AGE:34 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, 7

21. SMT.RENUKAVVA W/O BASAPPA MASANAKATTI AGE:31 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

22. SMT.RENUKAVVA W/O MALATESH VADDAMMANNAVAR, AGE:29 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

23. SMT.VIJAYALAXMI @ NARASAVVA W/O SRIRAMAKRISHNA HELAVAR, AGE:37 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

24. SMT.VANAJAKSHI W/O NAGARAJ CHIKKALLI AGE:33 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

25. SMT.SHASHIKALA W/O NINGAPPA AKKUR AGE:31 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

26. SMT.SHANTAVVA W/O MALLAPPA CHOUDANNAVAR AGE:51 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

27. SMT.SHARADAVVA W/O NEELAPPA AKKUR AGE:31 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

28. SMT.SHOBHA W/O MAHADEVAPPA HALIGERI AGE:34 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

29. SMT.SUNGAVVA W/O GUDDAPPA MASANAKATTI AGE:43 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

30. SMT.SUMANGALAVVA W/O FAKKIRAPPA AKKUR AGE:40 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

31. SMT.SUMITRA W/O GURUBASAPPA VADDAMMANAVAR, AGE:30 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,

ALL ARE R/O SOMASAGAR VILLAGE, HANAGAL TALUK, . … RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.MEGHA C.KOLEKAR, HCGP FOR R1, SRI.S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADV FOR R8 TO 31, SRI.DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADV FOR R5 TO 6, R2 AND 3 ARE SD THROUGH HAND SUMMONS, R4 AND R7 ARE SD AND UNREPRESENTED) 8

THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-K DATED 03.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT BASED ON THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT WHICH IN TURN IMPRESSED BY THE 2 ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE- L DATED 24.09.2011 AND ETC.,

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioners were beneficiaries under Annexure-B for the year 2008-2009 for construction of houses under the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Scheme. The petitioners claim that they are nomadic people and the said allotment has been cancelled as per Annexure-K dated 03.09.2011. It was earlier resolved to allot the houses to others as per Annexure-J dated 14.07.2011.

By virtue of Annexure-J, the 4 th respondent has passed a resolution cancelling allotment made to 66 beneficiaries including the petitioners and to include 65 new aspirants based on the 2 nd respondent’s letter.

Hence, the same is challenged by the petitioners in these petitions. 9

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cancellation of houses to the petitioners was made at the instance of respondent No.2/the then Minister by issuing a letter to respondent No.3/Rajiv Gandhi Rural

Housing Corporation Limited and that without affording any opportunity to the petitioners and others and without assigning any reasons, the 3 rd respondent has resolved to cancel the allotments made.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 31 has filed the statement of objections and submits that the petitioners who are not allotted sites and who were the beneficiaries as per Annexure-B, would get the allotment if they are entitled in the next allotment. The house allotments have been postponed as elections have been declared and the Code of Conduct is in operation.

He further submits that the respondents who are the beneficiaries under Annexure-J have demolished the huts and some of the beneficiaries have started 10

construction of houses and a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been released in favour of some of the beneficiaries.

Photographs to that extent have been produced as per

Annexure-R2 to 5. On equity, the allotment made to the respondents shall not be interfered by setting aside

Annexure-K. However, direction could be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the next allotment.

4. Learned Government Pleader adopts the submissions made by respondents 8 to 31.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. As per Annexure-B, the petitioners were the beneficiaries. The petitioners are nomadic people and belong to a particular village. At the instance of the then Minister for PWD, the allotments made to the petitioners is cancelled and as per Annexure-J, the 11

same were granted to the respondents 8 to 31 and some of the beneficiaries in earlier allotment also find a place in the next allotment. However, only few of them have been denied. Though the petitioners are entitled to get allotment, but due to the fact that the allottees under

Annexure-J have started putting up constructions, setting aside the order will not be helpful to either of the parties. Hence, I pass the following order:

The writ petitions are disposed. The respondents

5 and 6 are directed to consider the case of the petitioners whose names do not find a place in

Annexure-J on priority basis.

SD/- JUDGE

Jm/-