The court underscored the necessity for thorough inquiry when reviewing land allotment cases, emphasizing adherence to prior judgments regarding the applicant's capacity at the time of allotment.

ORDER :

(E.S. INDIRESH, J.)

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.04.2004 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent No.1 in LND(3)/CR/11/2003-04 and order dated 11.06.2015 (Annexure-F) in Appeal No.574 of 2004 on the file of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

2. The relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to be a resident of Ujire Village, Belthangady Taluk. She had made an application seeking allotment of a house site, pursuant to which, the Thasildar, Belthangadi Taluk, allotted 05 cents of land in Sy. No.214/2A11, Ujire Village. A Hakku Patra was issued in her favour on 02.10.1996. Subsequently, the said allotment was challenged by one Smt. U.M. Savitha before the Respondent No.1 in proceedings bearing S.R. No.25/1997-98, on the ground that the petitioner was a minor at the time of allotment. The said proceedings ended with rejection by respondent No.1 vide order dated 25.05.1998 (Annexure-A). It is also stated that, a Public Interest Litigation in WP No. 25198 of 1998 was filed before this, court challenging the allotment made under the said scheme and the said writ petition came to be disposed of by this court on 24.10.2002 (Annexure-B), in which, this Court directed the respondent-authorities to conduct an enquiry to discern any illegality in allotment of sites. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued show-cause notice as per Annexure-C, and pursuant to the same, the petitioner has filed objections as per Annexure-D. The respondent No.1, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 28.04.2004 (Annexure-E), held that, the allotment of site made in favour of petitioner situate is within 40 metres from the edge of the road and accordingly, cancelled the allotment. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.574 of 2004 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2015 (Annexure-F), dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri. S. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State and Sri. A. Keshav Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 8.

4. Sri. S. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the respondent No.1 and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has committed an error in interfering with the allotment of subject site in favour of the petitioner on the sole ground that, the petitioner was minor at the time of allotment of the site. He further contended that, the petitioner was born on 12.06.1978 and made an application seeking allotment of site on 15.07.1996, having attained majority and thereafter, the respondent-authorities have allotted 05 cents of land on 02.10.1996 and the said aspect of the matter was concluded by this court in W.P.No.17389-90 of 2001 dated 26.06.2001, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.4239 & 4240 of 2001 dated 29.10.2002 as well as in RP No.15 & 16 of 2003 in W.A.No.4239 & 4240 of 2001 and therefore, the said aspect of the matter having reached finality and same could not to have been interfered with by the respondent No.1 and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the impugned orders and therefore, sought for interference of this court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, the respondent No.1 has not considered the circular with regard to fixing the road margin in a village limit which is six metres from the edge of the road. He further contended that, the plot allotted to the petitioner is in the gram panchayat limit and therefore, the finding recorded in the impugned orders require to b