O.S.

139/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE KHANAPUR.
AT KHANAPUR.

BETWEEN:
Jerome J Andrade
And others …. Plaintiffs.

AND
Rujay B Andrade
And others ….Defendants.

BOARD APPLICATION

Herein, application on behalf of the plaintiffs is as under.

For reasons stated in the accompanying memo of facts it is most

humbly prayed that the case be taken for hearing on today’s board to

enable the plaintiffs to file application under section 152 etc. of the

C.P.C. for amendment of Judgement and decree of the case that was

disposed on by this Honourable Court of 13-12-2021.

At Khanapur
Date: 07-01-2022 The Plaintiff no.3
as also POA holder
of plaintiffs 1 & 2
 O.S. 139/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE KHANAPUR.
AT KHANAPUR.

BETWEEN:
Jerome J Andrade
And others …. Plaintiffs.

AND
Rujay B Andrade
And others ….Defendants.

MEMO OF FACTS

1. Herein, memo of facts on behalf of the plaintiff is as under.

2. In this case, this Honourable Court delivered the judgement on 13-12-

2021 and decree was drawn on 21-12-2021. The certified copies of the
same were obtained on 31-12-2021 by the plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs most humbly submit that there is error in the judgement
and decree that needs to be corrected. For which an application is
being filed under section 152 etc. of the CPC.

4. Hence, it is most humbly prayed to allow the board application to

enable the plaintiffs to file the application for amendment of the
judgement and decree.

At Khanapur
Date: 07-01-2021
The plaintiff no.3
as also POA holder
of plaintiffs 1 & 2
ಮೇ.

ಭೂದಾಖಲೆಗಳ ಸಹಾಯಕ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರು

ಭೂಮಾಪನ ವಿಭಾಗ ಖಾನಾಪೂರ

ಇವರ ಸನ್ನಿಧಿಗೆ

ವಿಷಯ : ಖಾನಾಪುರ ತಾಲೂಕ ಬಾಚೋಳಿ ಗ್ರಾಮದ R. S. no. 75/1, ಪ್ಲಾಟ್ no. 34 ಇದರ

ಹದ್ದು ಬಸ್ತು ಅಳತೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಕುರಿತು.

ಮಾನ್ಯ ರೇ,

ಬಾಚೋಳಿ ಗ್ರಾಮದ R.S. no. 75/1 ಲೇಔಟ್ ಪೈಕಿ plot no. 34 ಇದು ನಮ್ಮ ಸ್ವಂತ ಮಾಲ್ಕಿ ಕಬ್ಜ

ವಹಿವಾಟದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಈಗ ಇದರ ನಾಲ್ಕು ಬಾಜು ಅಳತೆ ಮಾಡಿ, ಈ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಗಡಿ ಗುರ್ತನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿ

ವಿನಂತಿ ಇದೆ. ಇದರ ಲಾಗುದಾದ ಚಕಬಂದಿ ಕೆಳಗಿನಂತೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.

ಉತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ :

ದಕ್ಷಿಣಕ್ಕೆ :

ಪೂರ್ವಕ್ಕೆ :

ಪಶ್ಚಿಮಕ್ಕೆ :
 ಈ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಇದ್ದು ಇವರಿಗೂ ನೋಟಿಸು ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಅಳತೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗಿ ವಿನಂತಿ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಬಡಿಸಿದ

ಅಳತೆ ಫೀಯನ್ನು ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ತುಂಬುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಟ್ ನಕಾಶೆ ಪಹಣಿ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆ ( ರಿಕಾರ್ಡ್ ಆಫ್ ರೈಟ್ ) ಲಗತ್ತಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ.

ಅಂತ ಬರಕೊಂಡ ವಿನಂತಿ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಹಿ. .

ದಿನಾಂಕ:

ಸ್ಠ ಳ : ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರ ಸಹಿ.

 O.S. 139/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE KHANAPUR.
AT KHANAPUR.

BETWEEN:
Jerome J Andrade
and others …. Plaintiffs.

AND
Rujay B Andrade
and others ….Defendants.

APPLICATION U/Sections 152, 153 R/W 151 of the C.P.C.

(For correction of error)

Herein, application on behalf of the plaintiffs is as under.

For reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is

most humbly prayed that the second sentence of the order of

Judgement and the decree be corrected as follows.

The Defendants no. 1 to 5 are jointly entitled for 1/3 rd

share and the defendant No.6 to 9 are also jointly entitled for

1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.

At Khanapur
Date: 07-01-2021 The Plaintiff no.3
as also POA holder of
plaintiffs 1 & 2
 O.S. 139/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE KHANAPUR.
AT KHANAPUR.

BETWEEN:
Jerome J Andrade
And others …. Plaintiffs.

AND
Rujay B Andrade
And others ….Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT

1. I Shri Rajesh Jakipiyedad Andraj age 63 years Occ. Adv residing at

Giri Plots north to Industrial Area Khanapur, today at Khanapur on
solemn affirmation do swear this affidavit as under.

2. That I am plaintiff no.3 and POA holder on behalf plaintiffs 1 and 2

in this suit. I am fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the
case and hence competent to swear this affidavit.

3. I most humbly submit that there is bona fide error regarding share
of the defendant no.9 even though he has lost the ancestral right in
the suit property more than 60 years back. There is error in the
second sentence of the order of the Judgement of including the
defendant no.9 with the defendant no.1 to 5 instead of including
defendant no.9 with the defendants 6 to 8.

4. Although the suit was filed for partition, the actual nature of the suit
turned out to be correction of areas in the records of rights of the
suit property i.e. R.S. nos. 80/1, 80/2 and 80/3 of Baragaon village
instead of partition. This is for the reason that the defendant no.6
with his WS, produced the certified copy of the partition deed of the
year 1943 of equal share each for the 3 branches. Since partition
had already taken place in the year 1943 itself, again raking up the
partition was not correct. Hence, in the para 4 of the additional
arguments dated 15-11-2021, it was urged that the partition has
already taken place and the corrections of areas to that effect in the
records of right is necessary.
5. I submit that in the para 7 of the initial arguments dated 08-10-
2021, the plaintiffs had mentioned about the following 3 survey nos.
that represented the 3 branches and the owners therein.

1st branch of defendants 1 to 5 - R.S. no. 80/1 (area 2A-13G)

2nd branch of defendants 6,7,8,9 -R.S. no. 80/2 (area 1A-00G)
3rd branch of plaintiffs -R.S. no. 80/3 (area 1A-12G)

6. From the above, it is clear that name of the defendant no.9, i.e.
Anton Agnel Andrade is appearing in record of right of R.S. no. 80/2
along with the defendants 6. The name of the defendant no.9
(Anton) is not appearing in the record of right of R.S. no. 80/1 along
with the defendants 1 to 5 even though the defendant no.9 belongs
to the genealogy of the defendants 1 to 5. This peculiar case is
explained in para 7 of the initial arguments dated 08-10-2021 that
the defendant no.9 has no ancestral right property in the lineage
with the defendant 1 to 5 (of the 1 st branch) represented through
R.S. no. 80/1 for following reasons. That the late Shaver –II
(grandfather of defendant no.9) was ousted from the property in the
year 1958 through dispute resolution with his brother late
Balu@Vintorin (the grandfather of the defendants 2 to 5 and father
of defendant no.1) by the way of adjustment with other ancestral
lands. Since the year 1958, the name, right and possession of
Shaver-II extinguished from the record of right of R.S. no.80/1, the
suit property and so also the right of his grandson, the defendant
no.9 extinguished and never appeared in the suit property. Hence,
the name of the defendant no.9 does not appear in the R.S. 80/1
that represented the 1st branch of defendants 1 to 5 and 9.

7. However, later on, in the year 2009 the defendant no.9 purchased
20 Gunthas from late Paulu, the father of defendants 7 & 8 of the
2nd branch represented by the R.S. no.80/2. Since the year 2009
only, the name of defendant no.9 appears in the records of rights of
R.S. no. 80/2 with defendant no.6. Hence, the defendant no.9 can
share the suit property only with the defendants 6 to 8 and not with
defendants 1 to 5. I submit that the defendant no. 9 has been
made party to the suit only for the above reason of his purchase,
even though the defendant no.9 has no claim in the ancestral
property as a legal heir.
8. The defendants 1 to 5 have been in possession of 1/3 rd share of the
suit property represented through R.S. no. 80/1 for more than 60
years, since the year 1958 i.e. ouster from the same of late Shaver-
II the grandfather of the defendant no.9. Inclusion of defendant
no.9 in this 1/3rd share of defendants 1 to 5 will unnecessarily give
rise to another dispute and multiplicity of proceedings. Such
injustice needs to be avoided.

9. It is submitted that the actual nature of the suit is not of partition

but about correction of areas in the records of right. Hence, the
same is to be decided on the basis of the facts detailed above and
not only as partition on the basis of genealogy.

10. Hence, as explained in the foregoing paras it is necessary to

correct the following second sentence of the Judgement and decree.

Defendants no.1 to 5 and 9 are jointly entitled to 1/3 rd share

and defendants no. 6 to 8 are also jointly entitled for 1/3 rd
share in the suit schedule properties.

The above sentence to be kindly corrected as:

Defendants no. 1 to 5 are jointly entitled to 1/3 rd share and

defendants no. 6 to 9 are also jointly entitled for 1/3 rd share in
the suit schedule properties.

11. Hence, it is most humbly prayed for the correction as sought

above and in the application in the interest of justice and equity.

The above contents are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief.

At Khanapur.
Date: DEPONENT.
 The certified copy of the judgement in the case

O.S. no. 13/1999 is produced herewith.

Hence this memo.

At Khanapur
Date: 15-11-2021.
Plaintiff no.3 also as
POA for plaintiffs 1&2.
 ADDITIONAL WRITTEN ARGUMENTS
(Plaintiffs side)

Herein, the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs are as under.

1. During last hearing the Honourable Court wanted to know about

the judgement delivered in the O.S. no. 13/1999 wherefrom the
certified copy of the partition deed dated 07-04-1943 is produced.
The plaintiff herewith submits the certified copy of the judgement
delivered in that suit. The description and position of the parties in
the O.S. no. 13/1999 is as follows.

The plaintiff – late Agnel Shaver Andrade is the father of the

defendant no.9 , Anton in the present suit i.e. 139/2019.

The defendant no. 1, is the defendant no.6 in the present suit.

The defendant no. 2, late Pavalu, happens to be the father of

the defendants nos. 7 and 8 in the present suit.
 The defendant no.3, Karu, happens to be the father of the
defendants at nos. 4 and 5 in the present suit.

2. In the O.S. no. 13/1999, the dispute is about sharing of water of

ancestral open well in the R. S. no. 71 and in that case the dispute
is not about the R. S. no. 80, the suit property in the present suit
i.e. O.S. 139/2019.
3. It is already stated in the earlier arguments that the partition deed
in the year 1943 was regarding the distribution of the ancestral that
included other 3 agricultural lands i.e. properties of R. S. nos. 52,
66, 71 and 80.

4. On going through the judgment in the O.S. no. 13/1999 it is clear

that the recitals in the partition deed have been upheld by the
Honourable Court in the said case. As such, as mentioned in the
partition deed, the equal share of area of 1A-22G for each branch in
the R. S. 80 is vindicated. Hence, it is clear that the partition and
separate possession of equal share in the suit property R.S. 80 has
already taken place and correction to that effect in the records of
right is necessary.

5. In sub para ii) of the para 10 of the prayer of the suit, the relief
sought is any relief deems fit may be granted in favour of the
plaintiffs. Also under provisions of Section 151 of the CPC, it is
most humbly prayed that the Tahsildar Khanapur be directed that
the areas in the records of right of R.S. no. 80 of Baragaon village
be corrected as follows:

a) In the record of R.S. no. 80/1, the area 2 Acres 13

Gunthas be corrected as 1 Acre 21 Guntha 10 Aana 8
Paise.

b) In the record of R.S. no. 80/2 the area 1 Acre 00

Guntha be corrected as 1 Acre 21 Guntha 10 Aana 8
Paise.

c) In the record of R.S. no. 80/3 the area 1 Acre 12

Guntha be corrected as 1 Acre 21 Guntha 10 Aana 8
Paise.

At Khanapur
Date: 15-11-2021
Plaintiff no.3 & as also the
POA holder of plaintiffs 1 &2
 O.S. 139/2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE KHANAPUR.
AT KHANAPUR.

BETWEEN:
Jerome J Andrade
And others …. Plaintiffs.

AND
Rujay B Andrade
And others ….Defendants.

ARGUMENTS
(Plaintiffs side)

Herein, the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs are as under.

1. This suit has been filed for partition and separate possession of the
suit property for its one third share to the plaintiffs of the 3 rd branch.

2. The defendants 1 to 5, 7, 8 and 9 have not filed any written

statements. The defendant no.9 is placed ex- parte.

3. Only the defendant no.6 filed his written statement in which he has
admitted the claim of the plaintiffs (3 rd branch) and also claimed one
third share for his 2nd branch. During evidence on 04-10-2021, the
defendant no.6 presented certified copy of the registered partition
deed that was executed way back on 07-04-1943. The plaintiffs once
again herewith produce the copies of the genealogy and the copy of
English translation of the partition deed for proper explanation of the
case.

4. The partition of the suit property took place in the year 1943 among
the branches. At that time Rocky-I of the 1 st branch was alive but his
brothers of other branches i.e. Kustas-I and Jerome-I were dead. The
partition deed was executed by the 3 persons i.e. eldest member from
each branch. The deed was executed by late Rocky-I for the first
branch by late Bavatis for the second branch and by late Jaki for the
third branch. These names are highlighted in the copy of the
genealogy attached herewith. Plaintiffs submit that the original
partition deed might have been in the custody of late Rocky, the then
 eldest member. It is not known in whose custody the original deed
now is.

5. The partition included other lands i.e. of R.S. nos. 52, 66, 71 along
with the suit property i.e. land of R.S. no.80. The English translation of
the partition deed is of 4 pages and page wise description as below.

a) Description of share of properties to be held by Rocky-I, (First

branch) are shown on the 1st and 2nd page. In respect of the suit
property (survey no. 80), his one third share of 1A-22G is
appearing on top of the 2nd page.

b) Description of share of properties to be held by Bavatis, (second

branch) are shown on the 2nd and 3rd page. In respect of the suit
property (survey no. 80), his one third share of 1A-22G is
appearing on top of the 3rd page.

c) Description of share of properties to be held by Jaki, (third branch)

are shown on the 3rd and 4th page. In respect of the suit property
(survey no. 80), his one third share of 1A-22G is appearing on top
of the 4th page.

6. From the above description it is clear that equal share i.e. an area of
1A-22G was apportioned to each branch through the deed. If this
area is multiplied by 3 the total area comes to 4A-26G. But the actual
total area of the suit property R.S. no.80 is 4A-25G. If this is divided
by 3, then the area to each branch comes to 1A-21G-10An-8P i.e. little
less than 1A-22G shown in the deed.

7. Although every branch is in possession of one third share of the suit

property as above, in April 2019 the defendants 1 to 5 tried to
interfere the possession of the plaintiffs citing the area in records of
right as follows.

1st branch of defendants 1 to 5 - R.S. no. 80/1 (area 2A-13G)

2nd branch of defendants 6,7,8,9 -R.S. no. 80/2 (area 1A-00G)

3rd branch of plaintiffs -R.S. no. 80/3 (area 1A-12G)

8. Plaintiffs submit that it is not known how different areas shown in
records of right of the branches instead of equal areas. Hence, the
plaintiffs were constrained to file this suit.

9. Here it is necessary to narrate the about the peculiar status of the

defendant no.9 in the suit property. The defendant no.9 has been
placed ex-parte in this case. Although the defendant no.9 happens to be
descendant of the 1st branch, he has no ancestral right in the branch for
the reason that his grandfather late Shaver-II was ousted from the
share of the suit property in the year 1958 when dispute between the
Shaver-II and his brother Balu@Vintorin was resolved by redistribution
of the ancestral lands. However, in the year 2009, the defendant no.9
purchased 20 Gunthas from late Paulu of the 2 nd branch. But this
purchase has been challenged by the defendant no.7 (son of Paulu)
through the O.S. no. 186/2010 that is still pending. These details clarify
how the defendant no.9 has no right in the 1 st branch but has right in
the 2nd branch.

10. The defendant no.6 of the 2nd branch and the plaintiffs of the 3 rd
branch have proved their case of right to equal shares i.e. of area of
1A-21G-10An-8P to each branch out of the suit property i.e. R.S. no. 80
of Baragaon village. Hence, it is necessary that areas in the records of
rights of R.S. Nos. 80/1, 80/2 and 80/3 be equal and corrected
accordingly.

11. It is therefore prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed as

prayed for.

12. Further, it is prayed in the plaint that any other relief deemed fit
-may be granted. Hence, the concerned revenue authorities be directed
to correct the areas of land in the three records of right of R. S. no.
80/1, 80/2 and 80/3 as area of each record equal to: 1Acre-21Gunthas,
10 Aanas and 8 paise.

At Khanapur
Date: 08-10-2021 Plaintiff no.3 also as
POA holder of
Plaintiff 1 and 2
 From:
Rajesh J. Andraj
Plot no.34, Giri Plots,
North to Industrial Area,
Khanapur pin 591302
Dist Belagavi (Karnataka)
Mob: 9480737370
Email-id : arjeandraj@gmail.com

To,
The Honourable Chief Justice, By Speed Post
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi 110001

Respected Sir,

Through this petition let me bring to your kind notice the

problems about usage of language in India. I am unable to come over to
New-Delhi to argue this case and also unable to engage an advocate
there. Hence, I humbly pray that this petition be considered on merits.

SYNOPSIS
           
This petition (PIL) seeks solutions on problems arising out of use of the
regional languages by the States in their day to day working. The
problems are faced by the people of other languages (POL for short)
who are not familiar with the respective language of the States that
results in violation of the FRs under Art. 14, Art 21 etc. of the Indian
Constitution.   Following are some of the problems/difficulties:     
 
a)    The display boards in public offices, public transport vehicles etc.
are mostly in regional languages/scripts causing difficulties
understanding the locations to the people of other States, Countries who
have to waste their time asking the local passers bye that also results in
avoidable disturbance to others. The persons from other
States/Countries who wish to set up industries, businesses, and for
which they have to purchase properties  are facing difficulties with the
revenue records, receipts, correspondences etc. which are  done mostly
in the regional languages  and such persons have to rely on translators.
 
b)    This petition also seeks to discuss the propriety of Article 343 of the
Indian Constitution that confers official language status to Hindi
language since its implementation is not practicable. This also causes
injustice to the people of people of Non Hindi states and violative of Art-
14 of the Indian Constitution. 
 

Encl : Detailed petition.      

Date: 05-10-2021
     Petitioner.
      
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NEW DELHI
                      (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRITPETITION   (PIL)        /                    
 
    BETWEEN:
              Rajesh J Andraj,
Age: 63 yrs. Occ. Pensioner/Adv.
                 Plot no.34, R.S. no.75/1, Giri Plot
            North to Industrial Area
            Khanapur Dist Belagavi pin 591302
(Karnataka)
     ……..    Petitioner. 
 
    AND:
              The Secretary 
Ministry of Home Affairs
Union of India
New Delhi

The Secretaries
Ministry of Home Affairs
  linguistic States of India.
    ……. Respondents.

 
     MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32   
       OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
 
The petitioner respectfully submits as follows:-
 
1. This petition seeks solutions on problems arising out of use of the
regional languages by the States in their day to day working. The
problems are faced by the people of other languages (POL for short)
who are not familiar with the respective language of the States.

2. The process of formation of linguistic provinces/States commenced

during British rule. The first linguistic province/State was ‘Orissa’
formed in the year 1936 during the British rule. It is to be noted that
some areas having significant Telugu minorities were transferred to the
newly formed Orissa State. The other linguistic States were formed in
the year 1956 i.e. after the independence. This was result of
Commissions such as Linguistic provinces Commission 1948, and the
State reorganization Commission 1954 etc. After formation of the
linguistic States, the Hindi states replaced the English language by only
Hindi in their day to day working and so did the other States replacing
English by their respective regional languages.
                                           
3. The petitioner craves to put forth some observations by Commissions,
luminaries etc. expressing apprehensions about linguistic States prior to
their formation. The linguistic provinces Commission 1948 (LPC for
short) made some observations, excerpts of which are as follows:
 
a)  After formation of linguistic province Orissa in the year 1936, the
Telugus who have been transferred to Orissa are very unhappy and
their condition is best illustration of the spirit of intolerance which the
linguistic provinces breed and the danger which lurks behind them.
 
b)    All the evidences before us agreed that it would not be proper to
call any area as unilingual area unless the majority of the one language
spoken in that area reaches at least 70 percent and any area below that
should be considered as bilingual or multilingual. 
 
c)    The new linguistic provinces will immediately bring into existence a
new kind of minority problem which did not exist before.
 
4. The excerpts of opinions expressed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar are as
follows:

To maintain national unity, the official language of every province

should be the official language of the Central Government. Linguistic
States with its regional language as official language may easily develop
into an independent nationality.

5. The Petitioner submits that unfortunately the above apprehensions have

come true and the people of other languages (POLs) including linguistic
minorities are facing difficulties and problems, some of them are as
follows:

a)  The display boards in public offices, public transport vehicles etc. are
mostly in regional languages/scripts causing difficulties
understanding the locations to the people of other States, Countries
who have to waste their time asking the local passers-by that also
results in avoidable disturbance to others.  Some States even go to
 the extent of using the regional language numerals in the bus tickets
etc. causing annoyance and confusion to the travellers from outside.
 
b) The persons from other States/Countries who wish to set up
industries, businesses, and purchase properties are facing difficulties
with the revenue records, receipts, correspondences etc. which are
done mostly in the regional languages and such persons have to rely
on translators. The affects the provisions of FR vide Art 19 and
especially Art 19(g) of the Constitution.
 
c) For applications in English and replies in sought in English, the
replies are in regional language only. 
 
d) Even though provisions for linguistic minorities are available, they
are hardly honoured by the State Governments due to pressure from
the overwhelming majority population for pushing only the regional
language. Although Commission for Linguistic Minorities is available,
its recommendations are hardly implemented by the State
governments and the Commission has no enforcing powers.
 
e) In some cases the language zealots display the number plates of
vehicles in regional language/numerals. This causes that the vehicle
cannot be identified/traced by the people of other State/Country in
case of accident/crime by the inmates of the vehicle.
 
f) Regional language is pushed in Court proceedings causing difficulties
to the litigants/advocates from other states thereby impairing fair
justice delivery.    
 
g) In some cases the youths originally from their parent State but have
no chance of education in the language of the State for the reasons
that from their childhood their parents migrating to other States for
jobs such as defence, all India services, private jobs etc. Such youths
after returning to the parents State, will be denied jobs of the State
Governments for lack of proficiency in the regional language.

6. The situation before Independence: The British rule brought

together under one rule the areas, provinces of the Indian sub
 continent. The English language came to be established as common
language for administration, correspondence, Judiciary etc.   all over the
country.  In addition to this, English language became a language of
Science and Technology as it played a key role to cope up with the
utilities through the scientific inventions that were taking place in the
western countries. 
 
7. However, there was feeling among large quarters in India that English is
a foreign language and symbol of colonial rule and after independence it
be replaced by an Indian language like Hindi. Hence special provision
was made through Art-343 of the Constitution making Hindi as official
language of the Union of India.
 
8. But, the above stance about Hindi proved to be a fallacy for following
reasons. Hindi could not be a language of Science and Technology as it
cannot cope up with the rapid inventions thereof. If Hindi is to replace
English for link administrative purpose in all States, then the people in
the non Hindi States will have to acquire proficiency in 3 languages i.e.
their regional language, English for Science and Technology and Hindi
for administrative purpose. The people of non-Hindi States, especially
the southern states obviously averse to   the burden of acquiring
proficiency in 3 languages and there were agitations in Tamilnadu
against Hindi. After 70 years of independence, the above said status
accorded to Hindi as official language is proved to be impracticable; and
English continues to be a de facto official language of the Union of
India.   English, roman script and international numerals have
established to be inseparable part of life of Indians and much less the
symbol of colonialism. Glaring example is of Goa state, which under was
rule of Portugal with Portuguese as its official language during the rule.
With the end of the Portuguese rule the Goa State adopted English
language for most of its working purpose because of its importance for
Science & Technology, global communications etc. 
 
9. Even though the Central Govt of India, armed with Art 343, tried to
push Hindi, it could not replace English usage and Hindi’s reach could be
only as a colloquial language of majority population of India. Obviously,
the use of English language is unavoidable in much of the proceedings,
whether of Governments’ or privates’. It is a peculiar situation in India
 that Hindi happens to be colloquial language of about 60 percent of
India but it cannot be language for official or other purposes in non
Hindi States; whereas, English is not a colloquial language, but English
has to be the language of trade, commerce, Central administration,
inter-state communication, Judiciary, Science technology etc.
 
10. In view such situation and scenario, it is necessary that all citizens
get proper knowledge of English and the public servants acquire
proficiency in English to meet the challenges of Science, Technology,
globalization and transactions in a multilingual country like India. For
this purpose, it is suggested that from Primary school level itself the
text books be bilingual. For instance, in a mathematics text book if a
page/paragraph is printed vernaculars, then the next page/paragraph
shall be its English version. This will make every student know for every
vernacular word/sentence, the corresponding word/sentence in English
language that will be helpful in acquiring proper/proficient knowledge of
English. Of course the size of the bilingual text book will be bulky and it
will be more weight for children. To overcome this problem, instead of
printing only one textbook of a subject, more textbooks of the subjects
can be printed or semester system of quarterly or half yearly period can
be adopted. Further, it is felt that since proper knowledge of languages
can be acquired by such bilingual textbooks of Science, Mathematics
etc., teaching of language subjects separately will not be necessary. 
 
11. From above pleadings it is felt the proceedings of the State
Governments only in their regional language is not correct and it
necessary that the proceedings be bilingual i. e. both in State language
and English. Further, efforts to push Hindi for all India correspondence
etc. is not correct and usage of Hindi be limited to colloquial use.
Following are some of the important questions arise in this regard.

a) Whether the status given to Hindi language as the official language

of the UOI through the Art 343 is correct since it is not
implementable and hence the Art. needs review?
 
b) Whether expenditure from the tax revenue earned from the Non-
Hindi States by the respondent no.1 for pushing Hindi as literary and
administrative language throughout India is correct and needs
 review?  Will it not be reasonable to reduce the expenditure and
spend to promote only the colloquial use of Hindi language instead
for literary, administrative purpose?
 
c) Whether will it be proper to promote the knowledge of English
language through bilingual text books as suggested in para 10
above?
 
d) Whether the States passing/declaring that their regional language to
be sole official language is unreasonable and violative of FRs Art-14,
Art-19, Art 21 etc.
 
e) Since the States have failed to protect the rights of linguistic
minorities, whether an independent Central agency is required to
enforce rights of linguistic minorities?
 
f) Denying reply in English and minority languages by the Central/State
Governments is violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
 
12. GROUNDS:
Petitioner submits that the grounds are clear from the above pleadings
in the petition and are self explanatory, and hence it is not necessary to
separately explain the grounds.

13. RELIEFS SOUGHT:  The petitioner prays to the Honourable Court

that through a Writ of Mandamus  following/similar directions be issued
to the Respondents:
 
a) The All the display boards of public offices, transport vehicles,
information about public services etc. be bilingual/biscriptual with
English/roman script/international numerals. 
 
b) All the orders in the interest of general public be issued bilingual i.e.
with English version.
 
 c) The people should have option of application is English and reply in
English shall not be denied. The States can charge extra
charges/fees for this purpose.
 
d) All the public records like revenue records, registers, receipt books
etc. be prepared bilingual.
 
e) The parties to the Court proceedings be allowed to record depositions
and evidences in English.
 
f) Calling out of case nos. in Courts be both in regional language and
English.

g) That the Govt. employees be allowed to work, write note sheets and
correspond in English language and State Govts. shall not insist for
all work to be in regional language only. 
 
h) That the Art 343 of the Constitution be used only to promote Hindi
as colloquial language and not for promoting Hindi as literary,
grammatical, administrative, official language. 
 
i) For the use of English sought for as above, it is necessary that the
citizens and the public servants in particular should have proper,   
proficient knowledge of English. Hence the respondents may be
directed to form school level education policy on the lines of bilingual
text books suggested in para 10 above of the petition. 
  

Date: 04-10-2021        
                                      Petitioner.
 

सीमाप्रश्नाची दुसरी बाजू              टक्क्यापेक्षा अधिक असल्याने त्याबद्दल वाद नाही. पण पूर्व भागातील
१. हा प्रश्न निर्माण होण्याची  आणि प्रलंबित राहण्याची  कारणे कोणती याचे
योग्य आकलन व्हायचे असेल तर कें द्र सरकारने भाषावार प्रांतरचनेचा विचार
होण्यासाठी जे आयोग नेमले, त्या आयोगांनी मांडलेले विचार व तत्वांचा उहापोह
होणे आवश्यक आहे. ते आयोग असे: अ) दार आयोग १९४८, ब) मिश्रा आयोग
१९५३, क) राज्यपुर्रचना आयोग १९५४.
२. दार आयोगाने एक महत्वाचा मुद्दा मांडला तो असा. – “भाषिक राज्यांच्या
सर्व समर्थकांचे असे म्हणणे आहे की सीमेलगतच्या द्विभाषिक जिल्ह्यांचे अशा
प्रकारे विभाजन करावे की ज्यामुळे एका भाषेची बहुसंख्या असलेली खेडी त्या
जिल्ह्यापासून वेगळी करून ती खेडी त्या भाषेच्या मुख्य प्रदेशास जोडू न सीमा
निश्चित के ल्या जाव्यात.” या मुद्द्यावरून हेच सूचित होते की त्यावेळी
कर्नाटकाचेही खेडे हा घटक धरूनच भाषिक राज्यांची सीमा आखणी के ली जावी
असेच मत होते. परंतु दार आयोगाने ७० टक्के किं वा अधिक भाषिक बहुसंख्य
असलेला प्रदेशच एकभाषिक (unilingual) तसेच  भाषावार प्रांतरचना
राष्ट्रीय एकात्मतेस पोषक ठरणार नाही अशी कारणे देऊन सध्य परिस्थितीत
भाषिक राज्ये करू नयेत असे म्हटले आणि भविष्यात जर करायचे असेल तर
अ) शक्यतो द्विभाषिक जिल्ह्यांचे विभाजन करू नये आणि के वळ भाषा हा एकाच
निकष न लावता ब) अन्य निकषांचा विचार भाषिक राज्ये करताना करावा, अशा
दोन तत्वांची शिफारस के ली. अर्थात ही दोन तत्वे म्हणजे जावईशोध आणि
मानभावीच होती, कारण ही दोन तत्वे मांडण्यामागे कोणतीही सयुक्तिक कारणे न
देता थातुरमातुर व आधारहीन  कारणे दिली गेली. तसेच खेडे हा घटक ह्या
सर्वमान्य असलेल्या आणि आयोगासमोर स्पष्टपणे मांडलेल्या तत्वाबद्दल
साधकबाधक चर्चा करण्याचे आयोगाने पूर्णपणे टाळल्याने आयोगाच्या
प्रामाणिकपणाबद्दल शंका घेण्यास वाव मिळतो.  
३. आंध्र प्रदेश ची निर्मिती आणि बळ्ळारी जिल्ह्याचे विभाजन.  तेलुगु
भाषिकांच्या रेट्यामुळे कें द्र सरकारने आंध्र प्रदेश या भाषिक राज्याची निर्मिती
करण्याचे ठरविले आणि त्यावेळी बळ्ळारी या द्विभाषिक जिल्ह्याबद्दल वाद निर्माण
झाला. या जिल्ह्यात एकू ण दहा तालुक्यांपैकी पश्चिमेकडील सात तालुके कन्नड
बहुसंख्य होते तर पूर्वेकडील तीन तालुके तेलुगु बहुसंख्य असलेले होते. जिल्ह्याचे
विभाजन करून तीन तेलुगु बहुसंख्य तालुके आंध्र प्रदेशास जोडण्यांतआले आणि
उर्वरित सात तालुक्यांपैकी बळ्ळारी तालुका वगळता सहा कन्नड बहुसंख्य तालुके
कर्नाटकला जोडण्यांत आले. या कृ तिवरून हे सिद्ध झाले की दार आयोगाची
जिल्ह्यांचे विभाजन न करण्याचे  वगैरे तत्वे ही भाषावार प्रांतरचनेकरिता चुकीची
ठरली.  
४. बळ्ळारी तालुक्यासाठी मिश्रा आयोग.: बळ्ळारी तालुक्यात कन्नड बहुसंख्या
५०% इतकी होती. तरी बळ्ळारी शहरात तेलुगु भाषिकांची संख्या कन्नड
भाषिकांपेक्षा थोडी जास्त असल्याने आंध्रप्रदेशाने त्या तालुक्याच्या पूर्व भागावर
हक्क सांगितला आणि के वळ भाषा ह्या एकाच निकषाचा विचार न करता अन्य
निकषांचाही विचार करावा असा मुद्दा मांडला. तर कर्नाटकाने भाषिक निकषाचा
प्रामुख्याने विचार व्हावा आणि बळ्ळारी शहर हे कन्नड बहुसंख्य असलेल्या
खेड्यांनी वेढलेले असल्याने ते कर्नाटकालाच मिळावे असा मुद्दा मांडला. मिश्रा
आयोगाने  खालीलप्रमाणे निष्कर्ष काढले.
  अ)  वाद हा बळ्ळारी तालुक्याच्या पूर्व भागातील तीन सर्क ल बद्दलच सीमित
आहे. तालुक्याच्या पश्चिमेकडील दोन  सर्क लमध्ये कन्नड भाषिकांचे बहुमत ७०
बळ्ळारीसह तीन सर्क लमध्ये कन्नड भाषिकांचे बहुमत जवळपास ४० टक्के तर
तेलुगु भाषिकांचे प्रमाण ३० टक्के होते.  आयोगाने या तीन सर्क लमधील
खेड्यांतील भाषिक प्रमाणाचा  सविस्तर विचार के ला. म्हणजेच आयोगाने
अप्रत्यक्षपणे खेडे हा घटक हे तत्व स्वीकारले.
   ब) संमिश्र भाषिक लोकसंख्या ( mixed population) म्हणजे
काय?:- आयोगाला के वळ बळ्ळारी शहरातीलच भाषिक प्रमाण संमिश्र स्वरूपाचे
वाटले. ते प्रमाण जवळपास कन्नड २६ टक्के आणि तेलुगु ३० टक्के होते. (म्हणजे
दोन्ही भाषिक लोकसंख्येतील फरक के वळ ४ टक्के ). बळ्ळारीच्या पूर्वेस
असलेल्या खेड्यांच्या पट्ट्यात भाषिक प्रमाण कन्नड सुमारे ५०% आणि तेलुगु
सुमारे ३५ % असे होते (म्हणजे दोन्ही भाषिक लोकसंख्येतील फरक १५%).
हा १५ टक्के इतका जास्त नसलेला  फरक  संमिश्र स्वरूपाचा आहे असे
आयोगाने म्हटलेले नाही.
   क) आयोगाने अन्य बाबी म्हणजे प्रशासकीय, आर्थिक, ऐतिहासिक इत्यादींना
महत्व देण्याचे नाकारले. इतिहासाबद्दल विचार करण्याचे नाकारताना आयोगाने
असे कारण दिले की इतिहासातील एखाद्याप्रदेशावरील कब्जा हा वंश, संस्कृ ती
भाषिक इ. तत्वांवर   आधारलेला नसून तो लष्करी बळावर अवलंबून होता.
  ड) बळ्ळारी शहर आणि आंध्रप्रदेशची सीमा यामध्ये असलेल्या खेड्यांच्या
पट्ट्यातील भाषिक प्रमाणाचा आयोगाने विचार के ला. काही तेलुगु बहुसंख्य
असलेली खेडी असली तरी जास्त खेडी ही कन्नड बहुसंख्य असलेली आहेत. या
पट्ट्यातील भाषिक प्रमाण हे सुमारे कन्नड ५०% तर तेलुगु ३५% असे होते.
जर तेलुगु बहुसंख्या असलेल्या खेड्यांच्या पट्ट्याने बळ्ळारी शहर आंध्रप्रदेशाला
जोडले गेले असते तर ते शहर आंध्रप्रदेशला देण्यास आयोगाची हरकत नव्हती.
पण तसा खेड्यांचा पट्टा नसल्याने बळ्ळारी शहर त्याच्या संमिश्र लोकसंख्येमुळे
कर्नाटकला देण्याची शिफारस आयोगाने के ली. म्हणजेच बळ्ळारी शहर आणि
त्याच्या आसपासच्या खेड्यांचे के वळ ४०% बहुमत कर्नाटकला देण्यास मिश्रा
आयोगाला पुरेसे वाटले.
५. वरील मिश्रा आयोगाच्या शिफारशींची कें द्र सरकारने अंमलबजावणी करून
बळ्ळारी शहर व तालुका कर्नाटकला जोडला. म्हणजे मिश्रा आयोगाने खेडे हा
घटक आणि साधे/सापेक्ष बहुमत (bare/simple/relative
majority) या तत्वांचाच अवलंब के ला व कें द्राने या तत्वांना अप्रत्यक्षपणे
मान्यता दिली. (आणि याच तत्वांचाच तर महाराष्ट्र आग्रह धरीत आहे.) या सर्व
घडामोडीवरून असे स्पष्टपणे दिसून येते की दार आयोगाच्या जिल्ह्यांचे विभाजन
न करण्याच्या, ७०% एकभाषिक, इत्यादी तत्वे कें द्र सरकारने त्यावेळी अमान्य
के ली होती  आणि म्हणून दार आयोगाची तत्वे भाषावार प्रांतरचनेस गैरलागू होती
असे त्यावेळी पुन्हा एकदा सिद्ध झाले होते.
६. राज्य पुनर्रचना आयोग (SRC):   वरील दार आयोग आणि मिश्रा आयोग
यांच्यानंतर समग्र भाषावार प्रांतरचनेसाठी एख्याद्या आयोगाची खरोखरच
आवश्यकता होती काय हा मुळातच एक प्रश्न आहे. सहसा आयोगाची गरज
तेंव्हाच असते जेंव्हा एखादा विषय गुंतागुंतीचा असतो किं वा त्याबद्दल एकमत होत
नाही. ज्याअर्थी दार आयोगाने स्पष्टच म्हटले होते की खेडे हा घटक धरून
सीमाआखणी व्हावी असे भाषिक राज्यांच्या सर्व समर्थकांचे म्हणणे आहे आणि
मिश्रा आयोगाने हेच तत्व वापरले,  त्याअर्थी याबाबत एकमत नव्हते किं वा
गुंतागुंत होती असे कसे म्हणता येईल? त्यामुळे बहुतेक ठिकाणी आयोग न नेमता
भाषिक समूहांमध्ये परस्पर संमतीने सीमाआखणी होऊ शकली असती आणि
म्हणून आयोग नेमण्याआधी कें द्र सरकारने परस्पर संमतीने होण्याची शक्यता
आजमावून पाहणे योग्य ठरले असते. परंतु या विषय सरसकट हाताळण्यासाठी
SRC आयोग (रापुआ) नेमला गेला आणि हाच आयोग दुर्दैवाने सीमाप्रश्नाचे
मोठे कारण बनला. मिश्रा आयोगाप्रमाणेच खेडे हा घटक आणि साधे/सापेक्ष
बहुमत यांचा विचार रापुआ  करेल असे  अपेक्षित होते (as per the
precedent).  परंतु अनपेक्षितपणे रापुआ  ने शाब्दिक कसरत करून दार
आयोगाच्या मृत झालेल्या तत्वांना संजीवनी दिली. म्हणजेच प्रशासकीय सोय,
आर्थिक बाबी वगैरेचे अनाठायी भांडवल करून दार आयोगाच्या द्विभाषिक
जिल्ह्यांचे विभाजन टाळण्याची आणि के वळ भाषा या निकषाचा विचार न करता
अन्य निकष लावण्याची आधारहीन तत्वे अंगीकारणे रापुआने ठरविले. तसे
करताना  सयुक्तिक  कारणे व शास्त्रीय अभ्यासाचा (scientific study)
आधार देणे आवश्यक होते. परंतु दार आयोगाने जसे ते के ले नाही ते रापुआ  ने
ही के ले नाही. तसेच रापुआने भाषिक बहुसंख्येची विचित्र आणि अन्यायी व्याख्या
के ली. ती अशी की ७० टक्के किं वा अधिक बहुसंख्य असतील तरच ती खरी
बहुसंख्या  आणि ७० टक्क्यापेक्षा कमी बहुसंख्य असतील तर ती कमी बहुसंख्या
किं वा संमिश्र भाषिक प्रमाण. खरेतर सर्वत्र मान्य पावलेले  बहुसंख्येचे तत्व
म्हणजे बहुसंख्या ही नेहमीच अल्पसंख्याकाशी सापेक्ष (तुलनात्मक) असते.
दुर्दैवाने हे सर्वमान्य तत्व रापुआने नजरेआड के ले आणि बहुसंख्य आणि
अल्पसंख्य भाषिक प्रमाणाची  तुलना  टाळून के वळ कमी भाषिक बहुसंख्या  पसरलेला  आहे की एकसदस्यीय व मार्गदर्शक तत्वे नसलेला महाजन आयोग
असल्याचे अन्यायी कारण दिले.  द्विभाषिक जिल्ह्यांमधील एकं दर अल्पसंख्य
परंतु काहीं खेड्यात व तालुक्यात  बहुसंख्य असलेया भाषिकांच्या इच्छा रापुआने
पायदळी तुडविल्या आणि त्यांना त्याच  जिल्ह्यात ठेवण्याचा आग्रह धरला. वरील
तर्क दुष्ट दृष्टिकोनामुळे रापुआ  ने खेडे/तालुका  घटक नाकारण्याची थातुरमातुर
आणि खोटी कारणे दिली. त्यापैकी एक कारण असे की सीमेलगतच्या खेड्यांतील
भाषिक प्रमाण हे संमिश्र (mixed) स्वरूपाचे असते आणि ते बदलण्याची
शक्यता असते. हे कारण अगदी खोटे आहे. कारण एकतर रापुआ  ने भाषेचे
संमिश्र स्वरूप म्हणजे नेमके काय ते स्पष्ट के लेले नाही. याउलट वर
उल्लेखिलेल्या मिश्रा आयोगाला बळ्ळारी तालुक्याच्या पूर्व भागातील १५% फरक
( कन्नड ५०% आणि तेलगु ३५%) हा सुद्धा संमिश्र स्वरूपाचा वाटला नाही.
याची तुलना मराठी सीमाभागाशी के ल्यास असे आढळून येत की मराठी कन्नड
भाषांच्या लोकसंख्येमधील टक्के वारीतील फरक हा बहुतेक खेड्यांमध्ये कमीत कमी
२५% असून तो १०० टक्क्यापर्यंतही आहे. असा फरक असलेल्या भाषिक
प्रमाणाला संमिश्र स्वरूपाचे असे कु णीही सूज्ञ माणूस म्हणणार नाही. शिवाय
सीमाभागातील जवळपास तीन चतुर्थांश खेड्यांत मराठी/कोंकणी भाषिकांचे प्रमाण
७०% पेक्षा जास्त असल्याने दार आयोगाच्या म्हणण्याप्रमाणे अशी खेडी
एकभाषिक (unilingual) ठरतात. तसेच सीमाभागातील बहुतेक खेड्यातील
भाषिक प्रमाण हे बदललेले नसून जे १९५१ साली होते तेच जवळपास आत्ताही
आहे. परंतु रापुआ  ने ही वस्तुस्थिती नजरेआड करून खेडे घटक नाकारण्यास  नाही, कोकणीला वेगळ्या भाषेचा दर्जा दिला आहे असा प्रतिवाद के ला आहे.
वरील धादांत खोटे कारण देऊन जिल्हा ह्या घटकाचा चुकीचा आग्रह धरला
आणि लेखणीच्या एका फटकाऱ्याने सीमाभाग कर्नाटकात डांबण्याची शिफारस
के ली. त्यावेळी रापुआ  ची वरील संमिश्र भाषिक प्रमाण व बहुसंख्येची चुकीची
संकल्पना इत्यादिंचे खंडन करून ती घोडचूक कें द्र सरकारपुढे  आणि संसदेत
योग्य प्रकारे मांडली  असती तर ती चूक सुधारून सीमाभाग महाराष्ट्रात येणे शक्य
झाले असते. परंतु त्यावेळी तसे करण्यात  महाराष्ट्र आणि मराठी माणूस कमी
पडला की काय असे वाटल्यावाचून राहत नाही आणि कें द्र सरकारने SRC
(रापुआ) ची शिफारस स्वीकारून   सीमाभाग कर्नाटकात डांबला. शिवाय
तथाकथित संमिश्र भाषिक प्रमाण असलेला प्रदेश कोणत्याही एका भाषिक
राज्यास जोडणे अयोग्य नाही काय? त्यामुळे तसा संमिश्र  प्रदेश वेगळा किं वा
कें द्रशासित ठेवण्याचा विचार रापुआने का के ला नाही असा प्रश्न उपस्थित होतो.              
७. महाराष्ट्राची भूमिका : वरील विवेचनावरून लक्षात येते की राज्यपुनर्रचनेनंतर
महाराष्ट्राने आपली बाजू मांडण्याचे स्वरूप हे दार/रापुआ आयोगांच्या मुद्द्यांचे 
खंडन करणे आणि मिश्रा आयोगाच्या मुद्द्यांचा  आधार घेणे असे हवे  होते. परंतु
तसे झालेले दिसत नाही. नंतर झोनल कौन्सिल समोरही नाही, महाजन कमिशन
समोरही नाही आणि आता सर्वोच्च न्यायालयातील मूळ दाव्यातही नाही. जर
महाराष्ट्राने मिश्रा आयोगाच्या तत्वाप्रमाणेच प्रदेश मिळावा अशी मागणी के ली
असती तर कर्नाटकला त्याचा प्रतिवाद करणे कठीण झाले असते आणि महाजन
आयोगाला साधे/सापेक्ष बहुमत नाकारता आले नसते. परंतु महाराष्ट्राने मिश्रा
आयोगाचा आधारच न घेतल्याने कर्नाटकाने दार/रापुआ यांच्या तत्वांची ढाल पुढे
के ली आणि महाजन आयोगाला साधे/सापेक्ष बहुमत नाकारण्याची संधी मिळाली.
मोठा विरोधाभास असा की मिश्रा आयोगाला बळ्ळारी शहर व सभोवतालच्या
खेड्यांतील ४०% कन्नड बहुमत कर्नाटकला जोडण्यास पुरेसे वाटले तर महाजन
आयोगाला बेळगाव शहरासह सभोवतालच्या खेड्यांतील ४७% बहुमत
महाराष्ट्राला जोडण्यास अपुरे वाटले. विशेष म्हणजे मिश्रा व महाजन या दोन्ही
एकसदस्यीय  आयोगांना कें द्राने कोणतीही मार्गदर्शक तत्वे (terms of
reference)  दिली नव्हती.  तेंव्हा दाव्यात मिश्रा आणि महाजन या दोन्ही
आयोगांच्या मुद्द्यांची तुलनात्मक चर्चा होणे योग्य ठरले असते.  परंतु मूळ
दाव्यात तशी चर्चा न होता मिश्रा आयोगाचा के वळ ओझरता उल्लेखच झालेला
आहे. महाराष्ट्राच्या दाव्यात म्हटले आहे की महाजन रीपोर्ट तर्क दुष्ट आहे. परंतु
खरेतर रापुआ (SRC) रिपोर्टच जास्त तर्क दुष्ट आहे. एक मोठा गैरसमज
कें द्राने लादला. याबाबतीत हे लक्षात घेणे जरुरीचे आहे की मिश्रा आयोग हा सुद्धा
एकसदस्यीय व मार्गदर्शक तत्वे नसलेलाच होता.
८. रापुआचे म्हणणे असे की बेळगांव हे आठ कन्नडबहुल तालुक्यांचे जिल्हा
मुख्यालय असल्याने ते कर्नाटकातच राहावे. याचा महाराष्ट्राने योग्य प्रतिवाद के ला
आहे काय? स्वातंत्र्यपूर्व काळात झालेल्या जिल्हे, तालुके इत्यादी प्रशासकीय
घटकांच्या रचना व सीमा योग्य नसून मनमानीच होत्या. उदा. अथणी, सौंदत्ती,
रामदुर्ग हे तालुके शेजारच्या विजापूर आणि धारवाड जिल्हा मुख्यालयांच्या जवळ
असूनही ते दूर असलेया बेळगावला जोडले गेले. आजरा, गडहिंग्लज हे मराठी
तालुके बेळगावला जवळ असूनही ते कोल्हापूरला जोडले गेले. बेळगाव व कारवार
या जिल्ह्यांच्या पश्चिमेस ‘गोवा’ हे पोर्तुगीज राजवटीखाली  असल्याने या
जिल्ह्यांची रचना तशी झाली. ‘गोवा’ हे ब्रिटीश राजवटीखालीच असते तर  या
जिल्ह्यांच्या  रचना/सीमा वेगळ्या झाल्या असत्या. म्हणून रापुआच्या जिल्हे न
फोडण्याच्या तर्क दुष्ट तत्वांचा योग्य तो समाचार घेणे आवश्यक होते.
९. कोकणी भाषेबद्दल महाराष्ट्राने दाव्यात म्हटले आहे की कोकणी ही मराठीची
बोली आहे. तर कर्नाटकाने काहीं तज्ञांची मते उधृत करून ती मराठीची बोली
तेंव्हा महाराष्ट्राने गोव्याचे उदाहरण देऊन कोकणी लोक धार्मिक आणि सांस्कृ तिक
कार्यात मराठीचाच वापर करतात व गोव्यात कोकणी शाळांपेक्षा मराठी शाळांच
जास्त आहेत असा युक्तिवाद करणे योग्य ठरले असते.                 
१०. आता सीमावासियांना न्यायालयातील दावा हीच  आशा आहे. दाव्यात
महाराष्ट्राची बाजू कशी प्रभावीपणे मांडली जाईल याचा विचार करणे गरजेचे
आहे. 
राजेश अन्द्राज B.A. LLB(Spl) 9480737370 Khanapur
Dt  Belagaum email-id --- arjeandraj@gmail.com