AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ Petitioners - four in number, are claiming to be persons interested in some agricultural lands in Sy. Nos. 7, 40/1, 40/5, 61/12 and 1/1 situated at Billakempanahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram, as the said properties are said to be joint family properties and the Petitioners share such properties along with Respondents 2 to 12.
Petitioners had once earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 17038 of 2007 complaining that the Respondents 2 to 12 are in a preemptive manner trying to change the nature of the land without taking necessary permission and therefore action was warranted against them by representing to the Deputy Commissioner, but the Deputy Commissioner was not responding etc.,.
This Court in terms of the order dated 11.1.2008 while thought it not necessary to issue notice to the present Respondents 2 to 12 with directions to the Government Advocate to take notice, disposed of the petition observing that the Deputy Commissioner should pass orders after considering the representation given by the Petitioners in accordance with law etc.,.
It is now complaining that the Deputy Commissioner before whom the proceedings was pending for considerable time as in terms of his order dated 11.8.2010 has closed the proceedings for the reason that both the Petitioners and Respondents are absent inspite of several opportunities etc.,.
It is questioning the legality of this endorsement, the present writ petitions.
Submission of Sri. K.R. Ananthamurthy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is that when this Court had issued direction to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the representation on merits, dismissing the representation on the pretext of non-availability of the Petitioners or the Respondents is only a ruse and the order is per se not sustainable and this Court may again issue directions to the Respondents, particularly, the Deputy Commissioner to consider the matter on merits and the Petitioners may be permitted to appear before the Deputy Commissioner.
Petitions and submission both are misconceived, most frivolous and if one may say so, is nothing but a gross misuse and abuse of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Such objections have been proliferating of late without any cause of action or rhyme or reason and it is not either possible, warranted or feasible for this Court to keep issuing directions to the authorities before whom a citizen might have made any and every representation and just because the authority has not responded to the representation.
A writ of mandamus will lie only in a situation where the Petitioner who seeks for issue of a writ, has a legal right with a corresponding statutory duty to act on the part of a public authority and there is inaction on the part of that public authority and the person having right has demanded the exercise of his right, has insisted on the authority to pass proper orders and in most situations such demand or request being through an application in the prescribed form etc., prescribed by the rules made under the statutory provisions.
As to whether the Respondents 2 to 12 who are admittedly relatives and also having right in the subject properties are trying to convert the land to non-agricultural use or to any other use is a matter which is purely private dispute between the Petitioners and Respondents 2 to 12 and in such matters, the revenue authorities have no business, to poke their nose and much less, to pass orders and dispute if any can be resolved only before the civil court.
Sri. Anantha Murthy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that a civil suit is already pending before the civil court.
In such an event, the writ petitions are nothing short of a gross misuse of the process of this Court, when a suit amongst the parties is already pending before the civil court.
Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed levying cost of Rs. 1,000/- on the Petitioners. Cost to be deposited to the credit of Advocates'' Welfare Fund and the receipt produced before the registry within four weeks from today.