Ex-Servicemen and Economically Weaker Section Society vs The Deputy Conservator of Forests

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The petitioner claiming itself as a registered society formed to espouse the cause of ex-servicemen and economically weaker section of the society has filed this petition seeking quashing of the order passed by 2nd respondent on 27.6.2006 in case No. RHS/CR/44/1982-83 and also for restoration of possession of land bearing Sy. No. 47 of Kothnoor Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and other reliefs. This writ petition was initially classified as GM-RES and heard by learned single judge for some time, thereafter, by order dated 31.5.2011, assigned to Division bench and heard by this bench for final hearing.

The facts as stated in the writ petition are that; in the year 1972-73 the petitioner society approached 3rd respondent-State Government for allotment of sites to houseless ex-servicemen and economically weaker section of the society for construction of house for their use and occupation. The 3rd respondent Government conceding to the request of petitioner society decided to allot sites in Sy. No. 47 of Kothanoor Village of K.R. Puram Hobli. Pursuant to that, Block Development Officer, Bangalore South Taluk proposed formation of a layout consisting of 762 sites in Sy. No. 47 of Kothanoor Village, which is gomal land and sent the said proposal to 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore, who accepted the same and released the gomal land for formation of layout. Thereafter, the Block Development Officer formed full-fledged layout and by identifying the ex-servicemen and members belonging to economically weaker section of the society, who neither own a house nor site, allotted aforesaid sites by distributing Hakku-Pathra (Possession Certificate). Pursuant to such allotment, allottees took possession of the sites, many of them constructed houses and are residing in the said houses. It is further stated that apart from allotting sites to ex-servicemen, residents of Kothnoor Village were also allotted sites. It is stated that sites which are allotted to local people are fully utilized and built up. The sites which are allotted to the ex-servicemen are said to be situated next to the developed area which is in occupation of local people.

It is the case of petitioners that certain local residents encroached into the land on which sites allotted to ex-servicemen are situated. Since the ex-servicemen/allottees have come from different parts of the country, they could not resist such encroachment, they approached the Government through representation dated 10.8.2000 to clear the encroachment on the said site. As there was no response from the authorities, they filed writ petition in W.P. No. 27623/2000 (GM-Res), which came to be disposed off on 10.8.2000 with a direction to respondent in the said writ petition to consider their representation.

Pursuant to the direction of this court in the aforesaid writ petition, the 2nd respondent considered the representation of the petitioner in proceedings No. RHS/CR/44/1982-83 and rejected the same vide order dated 27.6.2006, which is under challenge in this writ petition. In this writ petition respondents 1 to 6 are represented by Government Advocate and 7th respondent-CEO of Zilla Panchayath is represented by its counsel. All the respondents supported the impugned order and opposed the petition on the ground that the pleadings are not supported by the documents. That the pleadings to the effect that at the instance of the petitioner society the Government approved formation of the layout by the Block Development Officer and distributed the same in favour of ex-servicemen and economically weaker section of the society, is denied for the reason that admittedly the society is said to have been formed in the year 1999. There is no document on record with reference to the society approaching the Government in the year 1972-73, seeking allotment of sites in favour of ex-servicemen and economically weaker section of the society. Further, the respondents have also taken a specific stand that the portion of land bearing Sy. No. 47 and 48 of Kothnoor village is no longer either Government gomal land or a layout formed by the Government for allotment of sites to the poorer section of the society. The said land has already been included in the proposed green belt area as on 17.6.1986 vide D.O. Letter of Government bearing No. RD 151 LGB 85, dated 17.6.1986 and the same is transferred to Forest Department, which is in possession of the same and pursuant to which the revenue entries are also changed vide MR No. 6/99-2000 and 21/2001. That in pursuance thereof steps are also taken to remove the unauthorized occupants on the aforesaid lands and in this behalf, compliance report is also filed in this court by respondents 1 to 6 during the pendency of this proceeding.

We have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shivappa appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 6. On going through the records it is seen that the petitioner society has miserably failed to demonstrate that it is representing majority of the alleged allottees of sites in Sy. No. 47 and 48 of Kothanoor Village, K.R. Puram Hobli in the year 1972-73 and that the said society is entitled to represent their cause through this writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner society is formed in the year 1999, by which time the sites said to have been allotted to some of the economically weaker section of the society in Sy. No. 47 of Kothanoor village was already cancelled and the said land was declared as green belt even prior to 1985-86. Thereafter, this petition is filed as if the society were entitled to espouse the alleged cause of the ex-servicemen.

It is borne out from the revenue records that the land in question is already transferred to Forest Department for developing reserve forest thereon. The official communication between respondents 1 to 6 clearly discloses that the land in question does not belong to revenue department of the State Government and that it is no longer a gomal land and the same is in possession of the Forest Department upon being declared as reserve forest, as could be seen from the impugned order. In the said proceedings the 2nd respondent herein has not only considered the claim of the petitioner society but also considered the claim of other encroachers and has rightly held that the land on which sites are said to have formed and allotted to various persons by the Block Development Officer in the year 1972 are in the possession of Forest Department and as for the encroachers squatting on the said land, proceedings are already initiated for their eviction from the land in question.

A copy of Hakkupatra of the site said to have allotted to the member of petitioner-society produced would disclose that the allotment of sites is by the Tahsildar of Bangalore South Taluk, who is not competent authority for such allotment. The said document also does not disclose reference to G.O., or notification under which such allotment is authorized. Though the petitioner states that the State Government authorized allotment of sites by Tahsildar in favour of its members, no documents are produced in support of the same. On the contrary the revenue records disclose cancellation of aforesaid allotment, obviously for the reason that the Tahsidlar, South Taluk had no authority for allotting the sites and issuing Hakku Patras in that behalf.

Even otherwise, if the allottees of sites formed on the aforesaid lands are denied possession of the same or there is disturbance to their possession, it is open for each allottee to file suit in civil court and seek declaration of their title and possession within the time stipulated under the Limitation Act and not by filing a petition through a society said to have been formed by such allottees seeking the relief of direction to deliver the land to the society, which does not have any right to seek such relief. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court holds that the petitioner society has no manner of right to file this writ petition to seek aforesaid reliefs. Since the land in question is already transferred in favour of Forest Department and the same is being reserved for development of forest thereon, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows;

(a) The writ petition filed seeking quashing of order dated: 27.6.2006 in RHS/CR/44/1982-83 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District is hereby dismissed;

(b) It is further held that the petitioner herein is not entitled to seek possession of land bearing Sy. No. 47 of Kothanoor Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.