Smt. Rose Mary Presilla vs The Director, Sports and Youth Services and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to consider the legal notice dated 30-1-2012 issued by the petitioner for grant of site/land in Sy. No. 71/1P situate at Bannur Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District under Sports Quota. The petitioner claims to be an outstanding sports personality and has represented the Indian Kabbadi Team in International Meets. The petitioner in order to settle at her native place has sought for allotment of site. In that regard, the site available in the property bearing No. 71/1P situate at Bannur Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, has been located and the petitioner had made representation dated 10-1-2006. Pursuant to the same, the Tahsildar has also processed the papers and the Deputy Commissioner has submitted proposal to the Director of Sports and Youth Services Department insofar as the allotment to the petitioner. The said communication is relied on to indicate the fact that the petitioner is a Sports person.

However, insofar as the allotment of the site is concerned, since it is stated to be a Government land, necessary procedure is to be adopted by the Tahsildar for the purpose of allotment. In that regard, the Tahsildar had addressed a communication to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, relating to the said property. However, the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council had suggested to the Tahsildar that since the said property is located in a corner and would not be suitable for allotment, appropriate plot be suggested. Subsequent thereto, though the Tahsildar has addressed one more letter dated 23-4-2011 to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, relating to the allotment of an alternate property, nothing further has taken place. It is in that context, the petitioner has got issued the notice dated 30-1-2012 to the Tahsildar seeking for allotment of the said site.

In the instant petition, insofar as respondents 1 to 4 are concerned, there is no objection with regard to the consideration of the request made by the petitioner. However, the entire process had not been completed since respondent 5 at the first instance had addressed a communication stating that the site is a corner site and there are certain encroachments. In that view, the petitioner who is interested in allotment of the said site is of the opinion that the same would be suitable to her and the reason as put forth by respondent 5 would not be justified.

Be that as it may, on service of notice from this Court, though respondent 5 has not taken any steps to personally appear, a communication has been addressed to the Registry of this Court enclosing their comments to the petition. A perusal of the same would disclose that respondent 5 has clearly indicated that the property bearing Sy. No. 71/1P measuring 15 cents does not belong to respondent 5, but it is a Government property and respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to take their own decision. It is also indicated that the relief sought in the notice by the petitioner is not against the said respondent and as such, respondent 5 does not have any say in the matter.

The fact that the property belongs to the Government is not disputed by respondents 2 to 4 as well. Therefore, the entire process for consideration of the request as made by the petitioner would have to be commenced by respondent 4 and be completed with the approval of respondent 2. Therefore, a direction is issued to respondent 4 to consider the notice issued by the petitioner, take note of the circumstance and also the earlier correspondences made by respondent 4 and thereafter take steps for putting up proposal for allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner to respondent 2 who shall thereafter take a decision in the matter in accordance with law on the terms to be indicated therein. The petitioner shall now file one more copy of the notice dated 30-1-2012 with all the supporting documents with respondent 4 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent 4 shall initiate steps for considering the request as expeditiously as possible but not later than six weeks thereafter. The proposal shall thereafter be sent to respondent 2 who shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The entire process of consideration and communication to the petitioner shall be completed within an outer limit of four months from the date on which the copy is submitted to respondent 4.

In terms of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.