Karnataka High Court
Sri Revanna vs State Of Karnataka on 28 September, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 16462 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 16462 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI REVANNA
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
2. SMT FATHIMA DEAD BY LRS,
BASHA SAB AJIKRIYA,
S/O MOHAMED HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
3. SRI NAGARAJCHARI
S/O SHAMACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
4. NAGEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS
SMT MANJAMMA,
W/O LATE NAGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
5. SRI RANGEGOWDA
S/O NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
6. SRI DEVARAJA
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
-2-
WP No. 16462 of 2021
ALL ARE RESIDING OF
NANDIPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATTANNA TALUK 573116,
HASSAN DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHANTAKUMAR K C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M S BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN 573201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION,
HASSAN 573201.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
CHANNARAYAPATTANNA TALUK
CHANNARAYAPATTANNA 573116
HASSAN DISTRICT.
5. SRI N K SRINIVASA
S/O KRISHANEGOWDA,
AGE MAJOR
6. SRI KUBERA
S/O PUTTASWAMACHAR,
AGE MAJOR,
-3-
WP No. 16462 of 2021
7. SRI DORESWAMY
S/O CHIKKEGOWDA,
AGE MAJOR,
8. SRI JAVAREGOWDA
S/O HANUMEGOWDA,
AGE MAJOR,
9. SRI RANGEGOWDA
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGE MAJOR,
10. SRI RANGEGOWDA
S/O NANJAGOWDA,
AGE MAJOR,
11. SRI LAKKEGOWDA
S/O HANUMEGOWDA,
AGE MAJOR,
12. SRI IRSHAD
S/O RAHIDHA KHAN,
AGE MAJOR,
13. SRI LAKKEGOWDA E
S/O DODDARANGEGOWDA,
AGE MAJOR,
ALL RESIDENTS OF JOGIPURA AND NANDIPURA
VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATTANNA,
CHANNARAYAPATTANNA-573116,
HASSAN DISTRICT 573116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. B.C. DHANANJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R11)
-4-
WP No. 16462 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2017 PASSED BY R3
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN
IN NO.RA(CHA)14/14-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division, in proceedings bearing No.R.A.(Cha)14/2014-15 at Annexure-H and the subsequent order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.08.2021 at Annexure 'J'.
2. Some of the admitted facts are that the petitioners had made applications seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation and the 'Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation' of -5- WP No. 16462 of 2021 Channarayapattana Taluk, had passed orders conferring grant in favour of the petitioners in the year 2004. However, at the instance of the contesting respondents herein, proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2014 for canceling the grants made in favour of the petitioners, on the ground that Sy.No.31, measuring 14 acres and 11 guntas situated at Nandipura village, Kasaba Hobli, Channarayapattana Taluk, where in which the lands were granted in favour of the petitioners is a Tank bed area and the said lands could not have been granted in favour of any person. The proceedings were initiated in terms of Rule 108-D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) and the Assistant Commissioner held that the revenue records would indicate that 14 acres and 11 guntas were earmarked as "Katte" and the Committee for Regularization could not have ordered grant of the lands in the said area. The appeal was allowed and the grant made in favour of the petitioners were cancelled. The Revision Petition filed before the Deputy -6- WP No. 16462 of 2021 Commissioner at the hands of the petitioners herein was rejected by the order dated 12.08.2021.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tahsildar had submitted a report before the Committee who took a decision on the applications filed by the petitioners. In terms of the report of the Tahsildar, it was found that the petitioners were in unauthorized cultivation of the lands. It was not reported by the Tahsildar that the area is a Tank bed and neither did the petitioners know that the lands form a portion of the Tank bed.
4. Learned Counsel would also submit that even if the lands in question were earmarked as a Tank bed, nevertheless, it is clear from the available records that there was no existence of a Tank even during the year 2014 or previously. That itself is sufficient to say that even if the land was earlier reserved as Tank, it can be stated with conviction that there was no water body existing and the land had lost the characteristics of a Tank. Learned -7- WP No. 16462 of 2021 Counsel would therefore seek to place reliance on a decision of this Court rendered at Dharwad Bench in the case of Ningappa Durgappa Madar Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, reported in 2015(2) Kar.L.J.
126. Learned Counsel submits that this Court noticed the provisions contained in Rule 108-I of the Rules and held that the matter could be re-examined, since the lands in question had lost the characteristics of a burial ground and it could now be made available to the applicants.
5. Learned Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to Rule 108-N of the Rules which reads as follows:
"108-N. Powers of the State Government.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter, the State Government may, suo motu or on the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of any case or classes of cases, it is just and reasonable to relax any of the provisions of these Rules, it may, by order direct such relaxation, recording reasons for such -8- WP No. 16462 of 2021 relaxation, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the orders and thereupon lands may be granted in such a case or classes of cases in accordance with such direction."
6. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that if it was permissible for the State Government to pass necessary orders after securing a report at the hands of the revenue authorities, then only because necessary permission was not taken in terms of Rule 108-N of the Rules, the petitioners should not be dispossessed and displaced at this point of time, i.e., nearly 18 years after the lands were granted in favour of the petitioners and nearly 30 years after the petitioners had started cultivation of the land, which is evidenced by the reports submitted by the Additional Director of Land Records (ADLR), in terms of the memo dated 24.01.2022 filed at the hands of the learned High Court Government Pleader.
7. Learned Counsel submits, the fact that there are coconut trees aged about 30 years and more, standing on the lands in question, which would clearly establish the -9- WP No. 16462 of 2021 fact that for more than 30 years now and even till this day, there is no water accumulated in the lands in question.
8. Having heard the learned Counsels and on perusing the petition papers including the report submitted by the ADLR, this Court finds that the factual averments made at the hands of the learned Counsel for the petitioners may be correct. However, the decision sought to be relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is in a context of a burial ground and that after the lands were submerged by waters and thereafter the area earmarked for burial ground was never used as a burial ground, the directions were issued by this Court to examine as to whether post facto orders could be passed taking note of the changed circumstances. However, in the present case, we are dealing with a situation where the land is earmarked as water tank. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued various directions in the matter of protection of environment, be it forest lands, water bodies etc., this
- 10 -
WP No. 16462 of 2021Court is of the opinion that having regard to the fact that merely because a Tank was not filled with water for a long time, if the revenue authorities proceed to hold that the land has lost the characteristics of a Tank and make recommendations to the Government, such recommendations are dangerous to be acted upon. This, is something that is to be noticed, having regard to the natural calamities that we are witnessing in the recent past.
9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the land is earmarked as a water tank, even if there is no water logging for many years, the said lands should not be divested for any other purpose. However, the grievance of the petitioners are also to be kept in mind.
10. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that while sustaining the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, nevertheless, alternative arrangements will have to be made for the petitioners.
- 11 -
WP No. 16462 of 2021
11. Therefore, this Court would direct the respondent- Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, to identify any other alternative lands for the petitioners and make recommendations to enable the petitioners to have alternative lands. This Court does not find any fault with the petitioners and therefore, this action is required to be taken at the hands of the respondent-State.
12. The respondent-Tahsildar, Channarayapatna Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, are hereby directed to identify alternative lands which are suitable for agriculture and pass necessary orders of regrant in favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. The petitioners shall be permitted to harvest the crops that are grown at present and in that regard, the petitioners are permitted to remove the crops within a period of four weeks from today.
- 12 -
WP No. 16462 of 2021With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Pending I.A.No.2/2021 does not survive for consideration and accordingly the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL/JT