AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—The grievance of the complainant is that inspite of the order of stay passed by this Court in W.P. NO. 15419/2007, the Tahsildhar has asked the police authorities to take action against the complainant Para 10 of Annexure-A which is challenged in the aforesaid writ petition, an order of stay has been passed which reads as under:
In above context the following is urgently needed to be done at the government level:
As per detailed reasons, especially point No. 2, given above an appeal against the illegal order of grant of occupancy rights needs to be filed and GO is requested TO be issued in this, regard.
The HQA to DC Bidar is being deputed to file affidavit explaining the reasons and seeking condoning of the delay in filing the appeal
The basis reason why appeal may succeed is that the Land. Tribunal was wrongly functioning and had no Secretary nr its members participating in the decision and this violates KLR act 1961 and leads to vitiation of the order.
The very basis of grant order is a fake report of the ADLR in the year 1977.
Now the grievance is that earlier, the Tahsildhar called upon the police authorities to take action against the complainant and the police authorities refused to do so in view of the aforesaid order. Now again the new incumbent Tahsildhar has made the request and therefore according to the complainant, it amounts to contempt of the order passed by this Court.
The reading of the aforesaid order makes it very clear that when a direction was given to initiate appeal proceedings, the same was challenged and the said communication is stayed, no appeal is filed in terms of Annexure-A by any of the authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said there is disobedience of the said order. The police authorities refused to take action on the request trade by the Tahsildhar. That is the matter, which is to be challenged in separate proceedings by the complainant, if he is aggrieved by the same. Such an action cannot be construed as disobedience of the said order passed by this Court, where, all that has been stayed is preferring an appeal. In this view of the matter, we do no see any merit in these petitions. Accordingly, they are rejected,