Karnataka High Court
Hanifa W/O. Imamhussain Attar vs State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.103878/2021 (KLR-RES)
Between
Hanifa w/o Imamhussain Attar
Aged 81 years, Occ:Agricultural Coolie
r/o Near Khadi Gramodyoga Kendra
Ramapur Site, Saundatti, District Belgavi. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, Advocate)
And
1. State of Karnataka
Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms
M S Building, Bengaluru-01
By its Secretary.
2. Government of Karnataka
Revenue Department
M S Building, Bengaluru-560001
By its Principal Secretary.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Belgavi - 590002.
4. The Assistant Commissioner
Bailhongal Sub-Division
Bailhongal-590002.
2
5. The Tahasildar and Executive
Magistrate, Saundatti-590002.
6. The Deputy Commissioner &
Administrator of Navalgund
Sirsangi Trust, Belgaum
Represented by Thro Huzur
Karabhavi, Tal. & Dist: Belagavi.
(amended v/c/o dtd:20.12.2021) ... Respondents
(By Smt.Girija S Hiremath, HCGP for R1 to R5,
Smt.Shweta Kulkarni, Advocate for R6)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated
16.9.2021 bearing No.LND/CR-8/2021-22 issued by the 5th
respondent which is produced and marked as Annexure-L and
etc.,.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioner's husband, who was a freedom fighter, was cultivating the land in Sy.No.6/1 measuring 7 acres situated at Kenchlarkoppa village, Taluk Saundatti since 1940 till his death. Petitioner filed an application with the 5th respondent for grant of land in question under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. However, the said application came to be rejected on the ground that the land in question is a tenanted land vested with the Government and petitioner having failed to file Form No.7 is 3 not entitled for grant of land under Rule 5(3) of the said Rules. This was challenged by the petitioner in WP No.106546/2016. This Court by order dated 17.3.2016 set aside the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar concerned and further directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of land in question.
2. Pursuant to the order passéd by this Court, the Tahsildar concerned issued a communication dated 16.9.2021 vide Annexure-L rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner on the very same ground that the petitioner has not filed Form No.7. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revenue records clearly indicate that the land in question vested with the government under Section 44(1) of the Land Revenue Act and the petitioner is claiming for grant of land in question in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Hence, he submits that the impugned communication issued by the Tahsildar concerned is contrary to Rule 5(3) of the said Rules.
4
4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the Tahsildar concerned is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the land in question is a tenanted land. In the absence of Form No.7 filed by the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted. She further submits that the land in question is granted in favour of Panchayya Appayya Kadadevar Math and as such, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. She further submits that in view of amended Rule 5(3) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of land. The amendment to Rule 5(3) of the said Rules was effected from 2.3.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the land in question belongs to Sirsangi Trust and as such, the land in question cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. A perusal of the revenue records indicate that the land in question vested with the Government under Section 5 44(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. There are no documents produced before this Court along with statement of objections to substantiate the claim of the State, the land in question was granted in favour of Panchayya Appayya Kadadevara Math. However, the mutation entry bearing No.2/2010-2011 dated 8.7.2010 discloses that an extent of 7 acres 6 guntas of land in Sy.No.6/1 is granted in favour of Panchayya Appayya Kadadevara Math and an extent of 7 acres in Sy.No.6/1 is vested with the government under Section 44(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The said record clearly indicates that the land in question is not granted in favour of Panchayya Appayya Kadadevara Math as alleged by the respondent - State in its statement of objection.
8. The rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of land by the Tahsildar concerned is contrary to the records, which clearly indicates that the land in question is not granted in favour of Panchayya Appayya Kadadevara Math and also having regard to the claim of the petitioner for grant of land in question is under Rule 5(3) of the 6 Karnataka Land Grant Rules, there is no requirement for the petitioner to file Form No.7 for grant of land. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned communication dated 16.9.2021 vide Annexure-L issued by the 5th respondent is hereby quashed;
iii) The 5th respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of land in Sy.No.6/1 measuring 7 acres situated at Kenchlarkoppa strictly under Rule 5(3) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 as existed as on the date of filing of the application;
iv) Liberty is reserved for the 6th respondent to file objection to the Tahsildar to substantiate its claim with respect to the land in question.
v) The said exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;
Sd/-
JUDGE bkm