Karnataka High Court
Sri Kenchappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 1385 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 1385 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KENCHAPPA
SINCE DEDEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.,
1(a) SMT. SHIVAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
1(b) SMT. TEJASWINI K
D/O LATE SRI. KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
JUANITA
THEJESWINI 1(c) SRI. MANJUNATH
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
S/O LATE SRI. KENCHAPPA
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
1(d) SRI. ANAND
S/O LATE SRI. KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1(a) TO 1(d) ARE
R/OF ANEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARALVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
2. SMT. MAYAMMA
W/O. LATE. SRI. ANDANI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
-2-
WP No. 1385 of 2021
3. SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O. LATE. SRI. ANDANI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
4. SRI. MOHANA
S/O. LATE. SRI. ANDANI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
5. SRI. MADHU
S/O. LATE. SRI. ANDANI,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
(PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS
OF THE GRANTEE SRI. BYRAIAH S/O. ERAIAH)
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.1)
R/AT ANE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562121.
6. SRI. JAMBAIAH
S/O. LATE. SRI. CHELUVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
7. SRI. RAJU
S/O. LATE. SRI. CHELUVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
(PETITIONERS 6 & 7 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF
GRANTEE SRI. CHELUVAIAH S/O. VENKATAPPA)
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.2)
8. SRI. MADAIAH
S/O. LATE. SRI. SOMBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.3)
9. SRI. DASAIAH
S/O. LATE. SRI. VARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.4)
-3-
WP No. 1385 of 2021
10. SMT SHIVANAMMA
(PETITIONER 10 IS LEGAL HEIR OF GRANTEE- SRI.
RANGAIAH S/O. MUTTHAIAH
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.5)
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
10(a) SMT. SHIVAMMA
D/O LATE SMT. SHIVANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
10(b) SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE SMT. SHIVANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
10(c) SMT. SAKAMMA
D/O LATE SMT. SHIVANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
10(d) SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O LATE SMT. SHIVANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
PETITIONERS 10 (a) TO 10(d) ARE
R/AT ANEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562121.
11. SMT. KEMPAMMA
W/O. LATE. SRI. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
12. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O. LATE. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
(PETITIONERS 11 & 12 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF
GRANTEE SRI. RAMAIAH (NOT RANGAIAH)
S/O HANUMAIAH) (GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.6)
-4-
WP No. 1385 of 2021
13. SRI. MUDDAIAH
S/O. LATE. SRI. PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.7)
14. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. LATE. SRI. VARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
15. SRI NAGAVARADAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.
15(a) SMT. CHIKKOLAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. NAGAVARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
15(b) SRI. SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE SRI. NAGAVARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
15(C) SRI. SUNIL
S/O LATE SRI. NAGAVARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
15(d) SRI. SHARATH
S/O LATE SRI. NAGAVARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
15(e) KUM. SINDHU
D/O LATE SRI. NAGAVARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
PETITIONERS 15 (c) to 15(e) ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT. CHIKKOLAMMA-15(a)
PETITIONERS 15(a) TO 15(e) ARE R/OF
ANE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562121.
-5-
WP No. 1385 of 2021
16. SRI. NAGADASAIAH
S/O. LATE. SRI. VARADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
(PETITIONERS 14 TO 16 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF
GRANTEE SRI. VARADAIAH S/O VARADAIAH)
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.8)
17. SRI CHELUVAIAH
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.9)
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.
17(a) SMT. SANNAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
17(b) SRI. CHELUVARAJ.C
S/O LATE SRI. CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
17(c) SRI. SRINIVASA A.C
S/O LATE SRI. CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
17(d) SRI. RAMAKRISHNA A.C
S/O LATE SRI. CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
17(e) SMT. NEELAVATHI
D/O LATE SRI. CHELUVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
PETITIONERS 17(a) TO 17(e) ARE
R/OF ANE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562121.
-6-
WP No. 1385 of 2021
18. SRI.CHIKKABYRAIAH
S/O LATE SRI ERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.10)
19. SMT.HUCCHAMMA
D/O LATE SMT.MAYAMMA
AGED 60 YEARS,
20. SMT.LAKKAMMA
D/O LATE SMT.MAYAMMA
AGED 55 YEARS,
21. SMT.MUDDAMMA
D/O LATE SMT.MAYAMMA
AGED 48 YEARS,
(PETITIONERS 19 TO 21 ARE
LEGAL HEIRS OF GRANTEE-SMT. MAYAMMA
W/O SRI. LAKKAIAH (NOT LAKSHMAIAH))
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.11)
22. SRI.CHELUVARAJU
S/O LATE SRI MADAIAH
AGED 50 YEARS,
R/O MALLIGEMETTILU VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 121
(LEGAL HEIR OF GRANTEE SRI CHALUVAIAH S/O
MADAIAH (GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.12)
23. SMT.BORAMMA
W/O LATE SRI MOLLEJOGAIAH
AGED 70 YEARS,
24. SRI.BYRAIAH
S/O LATE SRI MOLLEJOGAIAH
AGED 52 YEARS,
-7-
WP No. 1385 of 2021
25. SRI.RAJAPPA
S/O LATE SRI MOLLEJOGAIAH
AGED 44 YEARS,
(PETITIONERS 23 TO 25 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF
GRANTEE SRI MOLLEJOGAIAH S/O GUJJAIAH)
(GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.13)
26. SMT.BYRAMMA
W/O LATE SRI BYRAIAH
AGED 60 YEARS,
27. SRI. VASANTHARAJ
S/O LATE SRI BYRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
28. SMT. THAYAMMA @ PREMA
D/O LATE SRI BYRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
29. SMT. GIRIJA
D/O LATE SRI BYRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
30. SMT GEETHA
D/O LATE SRI BYRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
31. SRI ANANDA B
S/O LATE SRI BYRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
(PETITIONERS 26 TO 31 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF
GRANTEE-SRI BYRAIAH
S/O GUGGAIAH (GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.14)
32. SRI SHIVANNA
S/O LATE SRI BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
33. SRI MALLESHAIAH
S/O LATE SRI BASAVAIAH
-8-
WP No. 1385 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 32 AND 33 ARE
LEGAL HEIRS OF GRANTEE SRI BASAVAIAH
S/O HOMBAIAH (GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.15)
34. SRI KALASAIAH
S/O LATE SRI PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
GRANTEE OF PLOT NO.16
PETITIONERS 1 TO 21 & 23 TO 34 ARE
RESIDENT OF ANE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
MARALAVADI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562121
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K ABHINAV ANAND., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT ( LAND GRANTS)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA - 562 159
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION
RAMANAGARA - 562 159
4. THE TAHSILDAR
KANAKAPURA TALUK
KANAKAPURA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117
-9-
WP No. 1385 of 2021
5. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF
UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION
KANAKAPURA TALUK
KANAKAPURA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS EX-OFFICIO
SECRETARY AND TAHSILDAR
KANAKAPURA - 562 117
6. THE DIRECTOR
SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
K.R.CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 001
7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION
RAMANAGARA - 562 159
8. SMT. MARAMMA
W/O LATE SRI CHIKKAVARADE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
9. SRI DASEGOWDA
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKAVARADE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
10. SRI VARADARAJU
S/O LATE SRI CHIKKAVARADE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
11. SMT. CHIKKAMMANNI
D/O LATE SRI CHIKKAVARADE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
12. SRI RAJANNA
S/O SRI C D PILLANNA @ PALLEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
13. SRI SIDDEGOWDA @ MANDE GOWDA
S/O SRI HONNE GOWDA,
- 10 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
14. SRI MOTEGOWDA
S/O SRI HONNE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
15. SRI VARADE GOWDA
S/O SRI THANTRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
16. SRI SHIVANNA
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA S/O MUDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
17. SRI SANMOGA
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA S/O MUDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
18. SMT SHIVARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE DASEGOWDA S/O MUDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
19. SRI NAGARAJU
S/O LATE VARADEGOWDA @ CHITTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
20. SRI VARADEGOWDA @ MOGANNA
S/O SRI MADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
21. SMT RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE SRI TAGADACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O DODDAGULI VILLAGE,
KODIHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562119
22. SMT PARVATHI
D/O LATE SRI TAGADACHARI,
- 11 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O ALAGADAKALU VILLAGE,
KODIHALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562119
23. SMT PUTANI
D/O LATE SRI TAGADACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O BANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562159
24. SRI NINGADI GOWDA
S/O SRI KALEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
25. SRI KENCHEGOWDA
S/O SRI HONNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
26. SMT HONNAMMA
W/O SRI KARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
27. SMT KEMPAMMA
W/O SOTHANNA @ CHIKKA VARADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
28. SRI. VARADEGOWDA
S/O LATE SRI DASEGOWDA @ BOOKKANNA
(NOT CHIKKANNA)
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
29. SRI. SHIVARAJ
SINCE DECEASED REPTD. BY HIS LRS.,
29(a) SMT. SAVITHA
W/O LATE SRI, SHIVARAJ
- 12 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
SMT. MADHU
29(b)
D/O LATE SRI, SHIVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
29(c) SMT. MOHANA
D/O LATE SRI, SHIVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 29(a) TO (c) ARE
RESIDENTS OF ANEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562121
30. SRI KEMPEGOWDA
S/O LATE SRI PEEKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
31. SRI SHIVANNA
S/O SRI PEEKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
32. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O SRI ATTIHALLI GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEAWRS
33. SRI MOOGAIAH
S/O SRI KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
34. SRI JUNJAIAH
S/O SRI VARADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
35. SRI SIDDEGOWDA @ DODDAIAH
S/O SRI HONNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
- 13 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021
36. SMT. HONNAMMA
D/O LATE SRI SIDDALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
37. RAJU
S/O LATE SRI. SIDDALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
38. SIDDARAJU
S/O LATE SRI. SIDDALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
39. SUNANDA
D/O LATE SRI. SIDDALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
40. KEMPAMMA
W/O LATE SRI MOTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
41. RAJU
S/O LATE SRI MOTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
42. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE SRI MOTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
43. BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE SRI MOTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
44. VARADEGOWDA @ BABLI (NOT BABLU)
S/O KONAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
45. KEMPAMMA
W/O SRI. KUNTANKA (NOT PUTTALINGA)
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
- 14 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021
46. KEMPEGOWDA
S/O SRI HONNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
47. PUTTASWAMY
S/O SRI GUYYANNA (NOT GOYYANNA)
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
48. JOGA MALLARADHYA
SINCE DECEASED REPTD. BY HIS LRS.
48(a) SRI. NAGABHUSHANA ARADHYA
S/O LATE JOGA MALLARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
48(b) SRI. SHIVAKUMARA ARADHYA
S/O LATE JOGA MALLARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
48(c) SMT. GAYATHRI
D/O LATE JOGA MALLARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 48 (a) TO (c) ARE
RESIDENTS OF ANEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562121
49. SRI. SHIVANNA @ VASANTHA
S/O KULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
50. SRI. SHIVARAJU
S/O JUNJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
51. VENKATALAKSHMI
D/O SRI HANUMAIAH (NOT HONNAIAH)
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
- 15 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021
52. KARIGOWDA
S/O SRI. GUYYANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
53. SRI.JUNJAIAH
S/O VARADEGOWDA
AGED 90 YEARS,
54. SMT.MADAMMA
W/O LATE SRI MARIGOWDA
AGED 60 YEARS,
55. SRI.VARADARAJU
S/O LATE SRI MARIGOWDA
AGED 42 YEARS,
56. SRI.KANTHARAJU
S/O LATE SRI MARIGOWDA
AGED 40 YEARS,
57. SRI.RAJESH
S/O LATE SRI MARIGOWDA
AGED 40 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 8 TO 20, 24 TO 57
ARE RESIDENTS OF
ANEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 121
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP FOR R1 TO R7
SMT. VIDYA S, ADVOCATE,
SRI. KARTHIK P.M. ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R28,
R30 TO 43, R47, R49, R52, R53, R54 TO R57)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2020 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL
NO.1299/2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-N AND FURTHER TO
- 16 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021
RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2009 PASSED BY THE R-2
IN CASE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L IN RESPECT OF 16
GRANTEES AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners who had been granted 3 acres of land each in Sy.No.41 of Anehosahalli Village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, which is now in Ramanagara District are before this Court aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No.1299/2012. There is also a prayer made by the petitioners to restore the lands in favour of the petitioners in terms of the original grant order made way back in the year 1984.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners who were bonded labourers were released from their bonds consequent to the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. These persons were thereafter in unauthorised cultivation of the
- 17 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 lands in Sy.No.41 of Anehosahalli Village. Having recognised the plight of the petitioners and the request made by them for grant of 3 acres of land each, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to pass official memorandum dated 07.07.1984 reducing 48 acres of land out of 60 acres in Sy.No.41 for being granted in favour of the petitioners and such other persons. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out from the official memorandum dated 07.07.1984 that the orders have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner having regard to the representations given by Sri Malle Jolaiah and 15 others. However, it is pointed out from the official memorandum dated 07.07.1984 that there were various conditions imposed by the Deputy Commissioner and one of them was that a maximum extent of 2 hectares of land could be granted in favour of such persons. Consequent to the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Saguvali Chits were issued in favour of the petitioners i.e., Sri Malle Jolaiah and 15 others. The grant certificates were issued on 11.07.1084 confering 3 acres of land to
- 18 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 each of the petitioners. However, at the instance of the contesting respondents, who also claimed that they were also in unauthorised occupation of Sy.No.41 of Anehosahalli Village, the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-division is said to have passed an order dated 28.10.1986 on the basis of a report said to have been submitted by the Tahsildar, reducing certain extent of lands which were granted in favour of the petitioners. As could be seen from the said order dated 28.10.1986 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, though what was earlier granted in favour of the petitioners was 48 acres in all, at the rate of 3 acres per head, the Assistant Commissioner reduced it to 13 acres and 4 guntas. In the same order, the Assistant Commissioner directed that the remaining extent of land could be granted in favour of other persons who were in unauthorised occupation of the land.
3. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioners had filed W.P.Nos.4979-4990/1997 since they were aggrieved of the inaction on the part of the revenue authorities and
- 19 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 survey department in conducting the phodi work and assigning new numbers to each of the granted lands. This Court by order dated 17.03.1997 directed the Tahsildar and the Assistant Director of Land Records to measure and fix the boundaries as provided in the grant. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4979-4990/1997 dated 17.03.1997 have not been complied even till date.
4. In the meanwhile, the contesting respondents had also filed applications in Form No.50 in terms of the provisions contained in Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which were inserted by Act No.2 of 1991. The Committee for Regularisation of Un- authorised Occupation rejected the application made by the contesting respondents while noticing that the lands which were sought to be claimed by the contesting respondents having already been granted in favour of the other persons (i.e., petitioners herein), the same is not available for grant in favour of the contesting respondents. In fact, the petitioners herein were the contesting
- 20 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 respondents before the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal bearing RA (LND) 10/1998-99 in which the Assistant Commissioner also passed an order dated 30.07.1999. Nevertheless, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to hold that the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation has not been given opportunity of hearing to the contesting respondents while considering their applications and though it was found that only 13 acres and 4 guntas of land were reduced and granted in favour of the petitioners herein and the other extent of land was available for grant in favour of the contesting respondents herein, the Assistant Commissioner therefore remitted the matter back to the Committee for reconsideration of the applications filed in Form No.50 at the hands of the contesting respondents herein.
5. However the contesting respondents herein thereafter came before this court twice in W.P.No.45587- 45596/2002 and W.P.No.13859/2008. In both these writ petitions, the grievance of the contesting respondents herein was that Committee for Regularisation had not
- 21 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 reconsidered their applications filed in Form No.50 as was directed by the Assistant Commissioner. This Court had directed the Committee for Regularisation to consider and pass necessary orders in terms of the directions given by the Assistant Commissioner. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners herein were not parties to the proceedings.
6. In the meanwhile, the petitioners herein approached the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, seeking survey and phodi of the lands granted in their favour. The Deputy Commissioner proceeded to pass an order dated 03.02.2009 holding that when 3 acres of land each were granted to the petitioners herein way back in the year 1984, the Assistant Commissioner could not have reduced the extent of land. Therefore, a direction was issued to the Tahsildar to conduct the survey and pakka phodi of the lands granted in favour of the petitioners. However, this order dated 03.02.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by the contesting respondents herein in W.P.No.2110-2112/2009 and connected matters. This Court by order dated
- 22 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 15.11.2012 noticed that there was an appeal provision in the form of Section 49(c) of the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and therefore the contesting respondents herein were directed to approach the Tribunal. The contesting respondents thereafter approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1299/2012 and in the said appeal the impugned order dated 12.02.2020 has been passed by the Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, since the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was on the application made by the petitioners herein seeking survey and pakka phodi of the lands that were granted in their favour way back in the year 1984. However, the Tribunal has confused itself in considering the claim of the contesting respondents who had admittedly filed Form No.50 under the provisions contained in Section 94-A of the Act and on the other hand, the lands in question were already granted in favour of the petitioners way back in the year 1984 under the
- 23 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 ( for short 'Grant Rules,1969'). On the other hand, the Tribunal held that the Deputy Commissioner could not have set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 28.10.1988 and 30.07.1999 since they were never challenged and even the Committee has not disposed of the applications of the contesting respondents herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the question of consideration of the applications of the contesting respondents in terms of the application filed in Form No.50 would arise only if the lands claimed by the contesting respondents are Government lands and are available for grant. However when it is clear that the said lands have already been granted in favour of the petitioners in the year 1984, the question of reconsideration of the application of the contesting respondents for grant of the same lands could not arise, since the lands are not Government lands but are hiduvali lands in the hands of the petitioners and therefore they
- 24 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 are private lands which cannot be regularised in favour of the contesting respondents.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would contend that along with the petitioners the contesting respondents were also in unauthorised occupation of the lands in question and therefore the land could not have been granted to an extent of 3 acres each in favour of the petitioners. Having this in mind, it is submitted that no fault could be found in the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 28.10.1986. It is contended on behalf of the contesting respondents that when the Assistant Commissioner found that the contesting respondents were also in unauthorised occupation along with the petitioners and since only 46 acres of land were reduced by the Deputy Commissioner for making the same available for grant in favour of the persons in unauthorised occupation, and having regard to the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to reduce the extent of land granted in favour of the petitioners, by virtue of the
- 25 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 inherent powers conferred on the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the Section 25 of the Act, read with Rule 25 of the Rules, 1969.
9. It is further contended that when there were rival claimants in respect of the unauthorised occupations in Sy.No.41 of Anehosahalli Village, the Committee for Regularization should have considered the claim of the contesting respondents along with that of the petitioners. If that was done, the Committee would have taken note of the report submitted by the Tahsildar which clearly shows that the petitioners were not in occupation of 3 acres of land each and having regard to the said report, the committee would have granted the lands in favour of the contesting respondents. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that when the matter was remitted back to the Committee, the Committee should have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the contesting respondents along with the petitioners. The Committee should have conducted an enquiry to find out the factual aspect to the extent of land holding and
- 26 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 thereafter proceeded to pass orders. It is sought to be contended by the contesting respondents that the matter having been remitted back to the Committee, the Committee has not passed any orders thereafter and therefore the learned counsel would further submit that the matter may be directed to be considered at the hands of the Committee for Unauthorised Occupation along with the petitioners having regard to the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 28.10.1986 reducing the extent of land granted in favour of the petitioners.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, learned High Court Government Pleader for the revenue authorities and the State and perused the petition papers.
11. Having regard to the undisputed facts that saguvali chits were issued in favour of the petitioners on 11.07.1984 and the fact that no challenge was raised by the contesting respondents in a manner known to law, in respect of the grants made in favour of the petitioners,
- 27 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 28.10.1986 is without authority of law. It may be true that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act, which confers inherent power in the revenue court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the revenue courts, nevertheless the Assistant Commissioner sought to reduce the extent of land granted in favour of the petitioners only on the premise that on a subsequent report said to have been filed by the Tahsildar, it was found that the petitioners were not in occupation of 3 acres of land each. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the Assistant Commissioner sought to invoke the inherent powers conferred under Section 25 of the Act, the same was required to be considered in terms of the Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Rule 25 of the Rules, 1969 provides for cancellation of grant only on 2 grounds namely where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representation or is contrary to the
- 28 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 Rules. The Assistant Commissioner has not found fault with the petitioners on either of the two grounds. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner sought to reduce the extent of land granted to the petitioners only on the ground that they were not in unauthorised occupation to the extent to which the lands were granted. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.10.1986 cannot be sustained. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly noticed this aspect and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
12. That being said, what requires to be considered in this writ petition is whether the subsequent applications filed at the hands of the contesting respondents herein in Form No.50 in terms of the Section 94-A of the Act could be considered by the Committee for Regularisation of Un- authorised Occupation. Sub-section (4) of Section 94-A empowers the competent authority to grant to the person liable to be evicted under Section 94 of the Act, such lands which are unauthorisedly occupied prior to the 14th day of
- 29 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 April, 1990 (as per the unamended provisions) or a portion thereof, if he satisfies the prescribed conditions (including the extent of land held and unauthorisedly occupied by him). The Committee constituted under Section 94-A would consider such application and pass necessary orders of regularisation and for grant. It is also necessary to notice that under Chapter VIII of the Act which provides for 'Grant, Use and relinquish of un-alienated land', various provisions are made including Section 94, which provides that any person who has unauthorisedly entered upon and is in occupation of any land set apart for any special purpose or any unoccupied land which has not been alienated, is liable to be evicted and penalty could be levied on such persons. These provisions make it clear that what is available for grant at the hands of the Government, namely Government lands which remains un- alienated and in unauthorised occupation is only available for consideration at the hands of the Committee. The lands already granted in favour of another person therefore, no being Government lands cannot be
- 30 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 considered for grant by the Committee for unauthorized occupation. This basic provision is required to be followed by the Committee. Having this in mind, the Committee had rejected the applications made by the contesting respondents herein. Even otherwise in the subsequent order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 30.07.1999, the Assistant Commissioner has also noticed the above facts. However, the Assistant Commissioner while passing the said order dated 30.07.1999 has also noticed the fact that by order dated 28.10.1986 the then Assistant Commissioner has reduced the extent of grant made in favour of the petitioners herein.
13. Having regard to the totality of the situation, it is clear that the contentions raised at the hands of the contesting respondents seeking regularisation of their unauthorised occupation in Form No.50, in terms of Section 94-A of the Act, is required to be restricted only to such of the lands which remain after what was granted in favour of the petitioners herein. There cannot be any manner of doubt that 3 acres of land each granted in
- 31 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 favour of the petitioners in the year 1984 remains intact and more-so since this Court has found that the order dated 28.10.1986 passed by the Assistant Commissioner was without notice to the petitioners and was rightly set aside by the Deputy Commissioner.
14. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 12.02.2020
passed by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal No.1299/2012 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) In so far as the contesting respondents
are concerned, since this Court has
found that their applications filed in Form No.50 have not been considered by the Committee even after the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.45587-
- 32 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021
45596/2022 dated 06.01.2003 and W.P.No.13859/2008 dated 25.11.2008, the matter stands remitted to the Committee for Regularization of Un-
authroised Occupation, Kanakapura Taluk to consider the applications of the contesting respondents herein and pass necessary orders, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(iv) It is made clear that the Committee shall consider the applications of the contesting respondents excluding 48 acres of land in Sy.No.41 of Anehosahalli Village, which have already been granted in favour of the petitioners. If there are any other extent of land remaining in Sy.No.41,
- 33 -
WP No. 1385 of 2021 the same may be considered in favour of the contesting respondents herein.
(v) The Tahsildar, Kanakapura Taluk, and the Assistant Director of Land Records, Ramanagar Sub-division are hereby directed to conduct the survey and pakka phodi in respect of the land granted in favour of the petitioners herein totally measuring 48 Acres in terms of saguvali chits issued in their favour, within a period of two months from the date on which the petitioners herein file online application as required under law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY