Karnataka High Court
Shri. Sharanappa S/O Parappa Rati vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208
WP No. 66784 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.66784 OF 2010 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SHARANAPPA
S/O PARAPPA RATI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
1A. SMT. VISHALAKSHI
W/O SHARANAPPA RATI,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: 530/4, SHIVAPUR ROAD,
4TH WARD, MUNIRABAD R.S.,
HULAGI-583234,
DIST: KOPPAL.
1B. SANTOSH @ SUHAS
S/O SHARANAPPA RATI,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: 530/4, SHIVAPUR ROAD,
YASHAVANT 4TH WARD, MUNIRABAD R.S.,
NARAYANKAR
HULAGI-583234,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
DIST: KOPPAL.
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.06.25 11:21:21
+0530 1C. ULLAS S/O SHARANAPPA RATI,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: 530/4, SHIVAPUR ROAD,
4TH WARD, MUNIRABAD R.S.,
HULAGI-583234,
DIST: KOPPAL.
(THE APPLICANTS NO.1B AND 1C ARE
MINORS R/BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E.,
APPLICANT NO.1A.)
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUHAS K. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208
WP No. 66784 of 2010
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL.
4. THE TAHASILDAR,
TQ: KOPPAL, KOPPAL.
5. SHRI. SOMANATH S/O NINGAPPA KALA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HULAGI, TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R4;
SRI RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/09/2010 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO. Kandaya/Appeal/29/07-08/1775 AS PER
ANNEXURE-M CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
07/09/2007 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NO.
KAM:BHOOMI:73:07-08/780 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208
WP No. 66784 of 2010
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4/State and learned counsel Sri Rajashekhar R. Gunjalli for respondent No.5.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 02.09.2010 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner/ respondent No.3 vide Annexure-G.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that plot in question bearing plot No.401/1 measuring to an extent of 15x39 feet situated at Hulagi Village, Koppal Taluk was granted in favour of the petitioner on 26.03.1985 and accordingly, 'Hakku Patra' was issued in favour of the petitioner. Subsequent to the allotment, it is stated that the petitioner was put in possession, obtained certificate from Gram Panchayat Hulagi, constructed a house over the plot in question and he has been paying regular tax to the Hulagi Gram Panchayat and has been residing in the said property. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208 WP No. 66784 of 2010 Therefore, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of allotment.
4. Respondent No.5 submitted a complaint to respondent No.4/Tahasildar signed by 45 villagers stating that the petitioner has furnished false information to the Tahasildar and got allotted the site in question by making false and wrong details and therefore, requested the authority i.e., Tahasildar.
5. Based on the complaint of respondent No.5 and other 45 villagers, respondent No.4/Tahasildar by his order dated 01.03.1993 cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WP No.7957/1993. Same was allowed and the matter was remanded to respondent No.4 to consider afresh by taking into consideration the objections of the petitioner. After remand, the matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 who passed the impugned order canceling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208 WP No. 66784 of 2010
6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, which came to be allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner came to be set aside and the matter came to be remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner for re-adjudication of the matter. Who in turn passed an order dated 07.09.2007 which came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner and the same came to be allowed vide order dated 22.11.2007 and the matter was directed to consider afresh by respondent No.4 to issue Hakku Patra by accepting the market value of the plot.
7. This being the factual aspect, one Smt.Meenakshamma W/o.Ningappa Kalal, challenged the order of Deputy Commissioner before this court in Writ Petition No.18672/2007 questioning the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent violating the principles of natural justice. This Court allowed the said writ petition vide order dated 18.01.2008 and remanded the -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208 WP No. 66784 of 2010 matter to the 2nd respondent with a direction to pass fresh orders after providing suitable opportunity to both parties.
8. Pursuant to the remand made by this Court, matter was taken up afresh. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 07.09.2007 and dismissed the appeal filed by the original petitioner by the order dated 02.09.2010. This order of the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the appeal of the petitioner is questioned by the petitioner in this writ proceedings.
9. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that from the date of allotment till today, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property, though the original petitioner has died, the wife and minor children of the original petitioner are residing in the property in question and they do not have any other property in their names or any other relatives names. Hence, he contends that the present situation would have to be considered with regard to the economic and financial condition of the petitioners. He has also filed an affidavit as per the direction of this Court to show whether any allotment -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208 WP No. 66784 of 2010 was made by the panchayat or the Government body in any of the family members of the petitioners. At paragraph No.5 of the said affidavit, four properties are described, which are in the name of the father-in-law, brother-in-law and mother- in-law having been allotted by the respondent authorities. But the learned counsel for petitioners contends that no property was allotted in the name of original petitioner. Hence, he seeks that the order impugned is erroneous, arbitrary without taking into consideration the present situation and the financial conditions of the petitioners. Hence, he seeks to quash the said order.
10. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents No.1 to 4/State and learned counsel for respondent No.5 contend that the order of allotment itself is illegal. The question of granting allotment to the original petitioner is per se violative of the statute and the Rules provided on the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules, 1969') and also the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Act, 1969 (for short, 'the Act, 1969'). It is relevant to extract Rule No.4 of the Karnataka Land -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208 WP No. 66784 of 2010 Grant Rules, 1969, which deals with the persons eligible for grant of land for agricultural purposes, which reads as under:
"4. Persons eligible for grant of land for agricultural purposes. (1)Lands available for disposal may be granted for agricultural purposes under these rules to a person.-
(i)who has attained the age of eighteen; and [(ii) whose gross annual income does not exceed rupees eight thousand; and]
(iii)who is either a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the land personally or has bona fide intention to take up personal cultivation; and
(iv)who is not a sufficient holder:
[[Provided that in the case of ex-servicemen and soldiers land may be granted if the gross annual income of the applicant does not exceed rupees two lakhs, so however, there shall be no income limit for grant of land to applicants who are widows or other dependants of soldiers who have died in action and in the case of ex- servicemen who have become totally handicapped in action.] Provided further that the extent of land granted to any person shall not together with the land already held by such person exceed the limits prescribed for a sufficient holder in Rule 2(15).] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) any person may be granted- the land adjacent or close to the land already held by him on collection of market value as on the date of grant to be determined by -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208 WP No. 66784 of 2010 the authority granting the land, if such land is, in the opinion of such authority required for better enjoyment or better cultivation of the land so held:
Provided that no such grant shall be made of an extent exceeding in the case of wet or garden land half hectare and in the case of dry land one hectare and that the total extent of land held after such grant does not exceed the ceiling area according to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961."
11. However, for grant of building and sites, Rule 18 of the Rules, 1969 prescribes that the Deputy Commissioner may grant sites. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the allotment so made in favour of the original petitioner is in violation of Rule 4 and also Rule 18 of the Rules of 1969, which clearly stipulates a proviso, which reads as under :
"Provided that no site shall be granted to a person who owns a home or a site within the village, town or city concerned or who has been granted a site by any authority during the land twenty years."
12. Therefore, it is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have fabricated the records, made false statement and has given
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208 WP No. 66784 of 2010 wrong description of the original petitioner himself, who was admittedly as on the date of allotment hardly eleven years, which has not been clearly stated by the original petitioner while filing application seeking allotment and neither is the allotment made to the petitioner represented through a guardian. It is also admitted that original petitioner was born on the 01.06.1974 and the allotment was made in the year 1985. Therefore, clearly it is apparent on the face of the record that as on the date of allotment, the original petitioner had not attained age of majority. Hence, the same is mischievous and false information was provided. Under the circumstances, the allotment made is against the rules prescribed under the Rules, 1969. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the respondents have passed the impugned order of cancelling the allotment. On appreciation of the arguments of the counsel for both parties, apparently there is no dispute that as on the date of allotment, the original petitioner was a minor, so therefore there is a contravention of the Rules, 1969. Under the circumstances, the very allotment itself runs contrary to the rules of the Rules, 1969.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8208 WP No. 66784 of 2010 Hence, there is no infirmity, illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order passed by a respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. Accordingly, I pass the following :
ORDER This petition does not merit consideration. Hence, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSP: Para 1 to 6 CKK: Para 7 to end CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25