SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is a person who had been given a vacant plot of land measuring 30x40 under the name and signature of the Block Development Officer and the Tahsildar, Srinivasapura Taluk, in terms of a site entitlement dated 20. 1. 1993. The Block Development Office and the Tahsildar were acting as a part of the Taluk House Committee constituted for the Purpose of distribution of sites to house less persons.

( 2 ) IT is in respect of such an allotment of house site that the authorities it appears have instituted further action at the instance of some disgruntled elements in the village who it appears had approached the Chairman and other persons of the Ashraya Yojane Housing Committee requesting the Committee to cancel the allotment in favour of the petitioner and to ensure that the site which had been allotted in favour of the petitioner to be retained as a play ground as the neighbouring land it appears hid been earmarked and allotted for the purpose of construction of a school building. The allotment in favour of the petitioner having been cancelled in terms of the proceedings dated 11. 4. 2001 copy at Annexure-F which was presided over by the Member of the Assembly of the Constituency and on the premise that the petitioner in spite of issue of notice had failed to make good as to the basis on which the site had been allotted and also as the records with the Committee did not indicate that the site of this nature had been allotted in favour of the petitioner the petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of this endorsement and other incidental reliefs.

( 3 ) SRI Papi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very right of the petitioner is under the allotment letter dated 20. 1. 1993 that the petitioner was an applicant under the scheme praying for house site under the scheme that the very Committee had allotted a site measuring 30x40' in his favour but the petitioner was not allowed to put up a structure not only due to financial constraints but also due to the interference by other disgruntled elements particularly by one Sri Venkataramanappa because of whose interferences, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O. S. No. 300/1999 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Srinivasapura and the said suit was decreed in terms of an order dated 27. 11. 1999 and is thereafter that the person had started moving the authorities to ensure that the allotment in favour of the petitioner itself was cancelled and that he can grab the site by hook or crook and the proceedings at. Annexure-F being without a valid notice and proper opportunity to the petitioner and having the effect of affecting the rights of the petitioner requires to be quashed and appropriate directions issued to the respondents.

( 4 ) NOTICES had been issued to the respondents and the writ petition was admitted by this Court on 3. 12. 2002. While the Ist respondent-State of Karnataka is represented by Sri. H. B. Narayana, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State the 2nd respondent-Taluk Panchayat, Srinivasapura Village, is represented by its Executive Officer and the 3rd respondent-Taluk House Committee by its President though served are not represented. No statement of objections have been filed by the 1st respondent.

( 5 ) I have heard Sri Papi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Narayana, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the 1st respondent.

( 6 ) IT is the submission of Sri. Narayana, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the order at Annexure-F indicates the need and. justification for passing the same that the petitioner had been apprised of the hearing but had not cared to appear before it that the order also indicates that the Committee had issued an endorsement dt. 21. 12. 1999 to the effect that on a perusal of the records at the Office which did not reveal issue of any document in favour of the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document