Karnataka High Court
Balasaheb S/O Krishnarao Desai vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.111094/2015 &
W.P. Nos.112456-112473/2015 (KLR-RES)
Between
1. Balasaheb, S/o Krishnarao Desai,
Since deceased, represented by his
Legal representatives.
1a) Bhogendraraj, S/o Balasaheb Desai,
Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Neerabudihal, Tal: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot, Pin: 587201.
1b) Smt. Shantabai, W/o Balasaheb Naik,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o: Munyal, Tal: Belagavi,
Dist: Belagavi, Pin: 591312.
1c) Smt. Aruna Ambarish Raja,
W/o Ambarish Raja,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o: D.No.1/221, Gudichetlu,
Alasapalli, Hosur, Krishnagiri,
Thummanapalli,
Tamil Nadu-635105. ...Petitioners
(By Sri. S.B.Hebballi & Sri. S.C.Hiremath, Advocates)
2
And
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by the Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building, Bengaluru-1.
2. The Regional Commissioner,
Belagavi Region,
Belagavi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner,
Bagalkot District,
Bagalkot.
4. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bagalkot Sub-Division,
Bagalkot. ...Respondents
(By Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, AGA for R1 to R4)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned circular
dated 25.03.2011 bearing No.Cu.Vi/Vatan/CR-22/10-11 issued
by Respondent No.3, a copy of which is produced herein as per
Annexure-O insofar as the petitioner is concerned; issue a writ in
the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notices dated
26.08.2015 bearing No.WTN/CR/15-16 issued by respondent
nO.4, copies of which are produced herein as per Annexures-Q,
Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q6 Q7, Q8, Q9, R, R, S, S-1, S2 and T;
and quash the impugned notices dated 16.09.2015 bearing
No.WTN/CR/15-16 issued by respondent No.4 copies of which
are produced herein as per Annexure-R1, R3 and R4 and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:
3
ORDER
The lands detailed in Schedule 'A' to 'L' are the subject matter of these writ petitions. The lands in question were granted in favour of the ancestors of Balasaheb, the original petitioner, in lieu of the services rendered by them to the Government. The lands were resumed by the Government after the commencement of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act', for short). Thereafter, the predecessors of the petitioner filed an application under Section 4 of the Bombay Act so as to re-grant the land in terms of Section 4(1) of the Bombay Act. The then competent authority, after considering the application filed by the predecessors of the petitioner, passed orders of re-grant, re-granting the schedule lands in favour of the predecessor in title of the deceased petitioners. The details of the re-grant orders passed in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedule 'A' to 'L' are as mentioned in the table below:
Sl. Lands shown in schedule to the Order of re-grant Date of re-grant No. writ petition order 1 Schedule-A (Halligeri) No.LRL-SR-702 20.07.1955 2 Schedule-B (Narenur) No.LRL-SR-1506 28.12.1956 3 Schedule-C (Halakurki) No.LRL-SR-1501 27.12.1956 4 4 Schedule-D (Chimmanakatti) No.LRL-SR-1505 28.12.1956 5 Schedule-E (Narenur) No.LRL-SR-1506 28.12.1956 6 Schedule-F (Halakurki) No.LRL-SR-1501 28.12.1956 7 Schedule-G (Hosakoti) No.LRL-SR-1509 28.12.1956 8 Schedule-H (Chimmanakatti) No.LRL-SR-1505 28.12.1956 9 Schedule-I (Haligeri) No.LRL-SR-269 20.07.1955 10 Schedule-J (Bandageri) No.LRL-SR-1510 28.12.1956 11 Schedule-K (Siddapur) No.CTL-SR-94 20.11.1959 12 Schedule-L (Jammanakatti) No.LRL-SR-1500 27.12.1950 Pursuant to the order of re-grant, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the concerned revenue records.
2. When things stood thus, respondent No.4 issued notices dated 26.08.2015, produced as Annexures-Q & Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, R, R2, S, S1, S2 & T, and notices dated 16.09.2015, produced as Annexures-R1, R3 & R4 (in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedule 'A' to 'L' to the petition) calling upon the petitioners to explain as to why the name of the Government should not be mutated in the revenue records since the lands in question are classified as Phot Kharab-B lands. Petitioners being aggrieved by the said notices have filed these writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lands in question were re-granted in favour of the predecessors 5 of the petitioners in terms of Section 4(1) of the Bombay Act, and in view of the re-grant order, the petitioners have become the absolute owners of the land in question. Hence, he submits that the impugned notices issued by respondent no.4 are without authority of law.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State, made the following submissions:
Firstly, the re-grant order dated 20.07.1955 at Annexure-B is not an order of re-grant in terms of Section 4(1) of the Bombay Act and as such no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners.
Secondly, the lands in question are classified as Phot Kharab-B land and as such re-grant order in favour of the petitioners is not enforceable.
Thirdly, he submits that the impugned notices are issued calling upon the petitioners to furnish the copy of the re-grant order so as to ascertain as to whether the provisions of the 6 Bombay Act are applicable or not. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. A perusal of the re-grant order at Annexure-B indicates that the lands in question are re-granted in favour of the predecessor of the father of the petitioners by the then competent authority exercising powers under Section 4(1) of the Bombay Act. The respondents, in the statement of objections, have not disputed the genuineness of the re-grant order at Annexure-B, but only contend that it is not a valid order. The contention taken up by the respondent-State is without any substance and in the absence of any material to establish that the re-grant order is not a valid order, it cannot be said that the re-grant order at Annexure-B, which is passed by the then competent authority under Section 4(1) of the Bombay Act is not a valid order and not binding on the respondent-State. 7
7. When such being the case, the Assistant Commissioner, without any source of power traceable to any provision of a statute, has issued the impugned notices to the petitioners calling upon them to appear before him and explain as to why the name of the Government should not be mutated in the revenue records in respect of the lands in question since the lands in question are classified as Phot Kharab-B lands. There is no material placed before this Court by the respondent-State that the lands in question are classified as Phot Kharab-B land except taking up frivolous contentions in the statement of objections.
8. The impugned notices have been issued on the ground that the lands in question are classified as Phot Kharab-B lands i.e., government lands. However, the respondents, in its statement of objections, has contended that the re-grant orders are not valid orders. It is settled law that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented as fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or 8 otherwise. This ratio is enunciated in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978)1 SCC
405.
9. In the absence of any material to establish that the lands in question are classified as Phot Kharab-B land, the impugned notices issued by respondent No.4 is one without authority of law. When the validity of the re-grant order passed by then competent authority is in force and the names of the petitioners are mutated in the revenue records in pursuance of the said re-grant order, respondent No.4 has no authority calling upon the petitioners to appear before him. If the respondent- State is of the opinion that the re-grant order at Annexure-B is not a valid order, it is for the appropriate authority under the relevant provisions of law to take steps as is permissible in law. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.4, without authority of law has issued the impugned notices.
10. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view, that the impugned notices issued by 9 respondent No.4 is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The writ petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned notices dated 26.08.2015 issued by respondent No.4, at Annexures-Q, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, R, R2, S, S1, S2 & T are hereby quashed, and the impugned notices dated 16.09.2015 issued by respondent No.4, at Annexures-R1, R3 & R4 are hereby quashed.
iii) It is needless to state that the Tahasildar concerned is directed to restore the names of the petitioners in Column No.9 and 12 of the record of rights in respect of the lands in question in place of the name of the Government, if not already mutated.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms