Karnataka High Court
Sri T V Narayanasamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 218
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
W.P.No.14857/2018
-1-
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 14857 OF 2018 (KLR-LG) PIL
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T.V. NARAYANASAMY
S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
2. SRI T.R. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
R.THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE & POST,
RONURU HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI L. VENKATARAMA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
W.P.No.14857/2018
-2-
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HEALTH & FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563101
4. THE TAHSILDHAR
SRINIVASPUR,
SRINIVASPUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563135
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.A.PRASHANTH, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2017 PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ORDER DATED
24.10.2017 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER
ANNEXURE-D & ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.No.14857/2018
-3-
ORDER
By way of this writ petition, framed and styled as a public interest litigation, the petitioners, said to be the residents of R.Thimmasandra Village, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, seek to question the orders dated 26.08.2017 (Annexure-C) and dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure-D) issued respectively by the Government, in its Revenue Department (Land Grant-1) and the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar, whereby 25 acres of land in Sy.No.131 at R.Thimmasandra Village, Ronuru Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, has been taken out of the land reserved for gomal (cattle grazing); and has been allotted to the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Karnataka for the purpose of construction of a Super Speciality Hospital.
The petitioners submit that 134.17 acres of land in Sy.No.131 of R.Thimmasandra Village was reserved and retained as gomal for grazing of cattle, but the Government, in its Revenue Department, by its order dated 26.08.2017, reduced the area of the said cattle grazing land by 25 acres W.P.No.14857/2018 -4- and allotted this 25 acres for construction of Super Speciality Hospital. It is pointed out that pursuant to the orders made by the Government, the respondent No.3 -Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, issued the order on 24.10.2017 reserving the said 25 acres of land for Super Speciality Hospital and transferring the same to the Health and Family Welfare Department. It is further pointed out that consequential mutation entries are made in the revenue records; Health and Family Welfare Department has laid the foundation stone for construction of the Super Speciality Hospital; and now, the construction of the hospital has started on 05.03.2018 and the same is in progress in full swing.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned orders issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 in exercise of the powers under Section 71 of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ['the Act of 1964'] and Rule 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 ['the Rules of 1966'], are illegal and contrary to the provisions of law because the respondents have no authority to reduce the extent of the land reserved for grazing of cattle. W.P.No.14857/2018 -5-
Learned counsel for the petitioners has particularly referred to and relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.Kenchappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors: ILR 2000 KAR 1072. Learned counsel would submit that the revenue authorities have failed to consider the requirements of the villagers for cattle grazing and have not followed the requisite procedure; and hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the respondents deserve to be restrained from carrying out the construction of the Super Speciality Hospital.
Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made and having examined the records, we are clearly of the view that this petition cannot be considered as the one espousing a genuine public cause and does not merit admission.
True it is that the Act of 1964 and the Rules of 1966 ensure providing of the land for special purposes and it is, inter alia, enjoined upon the revenue authorities to set apart the land for free pasturage but then, the Deputy W.P.No.14857/2018 -6- Commissioner of the area is especially empowered to determine the extent of land necessary to be set apart for free pasturage in any village and he could also reduce the extent thereof. Section 71 of the Act of 1964 and Rule 97 of the Rules of 1966 respectively, read as under:
"Section 71. Lands may be assigned for special purposes and when assigned, shall not be otherwise used without sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.-Subject to the general orders of the State Government, Survey Officers, whilst survey operations are proceeding under this Act, and at any other time, the Deputy Commissioner, may set apart lands, which are the property of the State Government and not in the lawful occupation of any person or aggregate of persons in any village or portions of a village, for free pasturage for the village cattle, for forest reserves or for any other public purpose; and lands assigned specially for any such purpose shall not be otherwise used without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner; and in the disposal of lands under section 69 due regard shall be had to all such special assignments".
"Rule 97. Providing free pasturage.-(1) Government land shall be set apart for free pasturage for the cattle of each village at the rate of twelve hectares for every hundred heads of cattle.
Explanation.- In calculating the heads of cattle or goats, sheep or calves or cow or buffalo shall be taken as equivalent to one head of cattle.W.P.No.14857/2018 -7-
(2) If there is sufficient forest area in the village concerned or in the adjoining village to enable the village cattle to graze, the area to be set apart as free pasturage may be reduced correspondingly.
(3) If there is no grazing land available in a village, or the land available falls short of the extent prescribed under sub-rule (1) the deficit may be made up by setting apart Government land available in the adjacent village.
(4) The Deputy Commissioner shall determine the extent of land necessary to be set apart for free pasturage in any village. If in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner the extent of pasturage should exceed the minimum prescribed in sub-rule (1) he may so set apart such larger extent as may be necessary. If on the contrary he considers that the area already so set apart is much larger than what is really required, he may reduce it to the prescribed minimum. Where, he considers that the extent of free pasturage may be reduced below the prescribed limit, he should do so only after obtaining the prior permission of the Divisional Commissioner:
Provided that no such permission shall be necessary where the reduction below the prescribed limit is for the purpose of,-
(i) distribution of house sites to the
sightless person; and
(ii) grant of land to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, for agricultural purposes, who are ordinarily residents of such village.
(iii) regularisation of unauthorised
cultivation under Chapter XIII-A.
....."
W.P.No.14857/2018
-8-
In the face of the provisions aforementioned, it cannot be said that if a parcel of land is set apart for cattle grazing, the extent thereof could never be reduced. It needs hardly any emphasis that in multifaceted and myriad public welfare activities, several of the requirements need to be balanced by the authorities in an appropriate manner. Even when the necessity of cattle grazing land in the context of a village settlement cannot be gainsaid, the requirements of medical and health care facilities are also of unquestionable necessity and significance. It is not open for the petitioners to contend that the requirements of cattle grazing override the requirements of appropriate health care facilities.
On the facts averred by the petitioners, it appears that out of 134.17 acres reserved as gomal, 25 acres of land has been taken out for the purpose of construction of Super Speciality Hospital. The very purpose for which the cattle grazing land has been reduced and the extent of reduction ex facie show that the respondents have attempted to balance the requirements of cattle grazing and those of health care W.P.No.14857/2018 -9- facilities and then, have taken only 25 acres of land for Super Speciality Hospital, out of 134.17 acres. The action so taken by the respondents is neither unreasonable nor unauthorised in view of the powers reserved under Section 71 and Rule 97 ibid.
In C.Kenchappa's case (supra), this Court has not laid down any absolute rule that cattle grazing land could never be used for other purposes or that the extent thereof could never be reduced for other public welfare activities. Moreover, in the said case, the land forming gomal and falling under greenbelt was sought to be taken out for industrial purposes and was sought to be allotted to respondent No.3 therein, a Company proposing to setup a Research and Development Project. There had been questions on the validity of the notice under Section 3(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1996. In the given set of facts, the Division Bench of this Court, though quashed the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1966, but the allotment made to the respondent No.3 was not disturbed. In the said decision too, this Court W.P.No.14857/2018
- 10 -
indicated the need for striking a balance between industrial development and ecological preservation.
As noticed, in the present case, the impugned orders have been issued to subserve an essential public requirement i.e., of health care facilities. We are unable to find that setting up of a Super Speciality Hospital by the Government would be operating against any public cause; rather, such setting up of the hospital is of undeniable necessity.
For what has been discussed hereinabove, this writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE BSR