Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gangamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2020
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B. M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12004/2020 (KLR/RES)
BETWEEN :
1. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
2. SRI M. R. DAYANANDA
S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
BOTH R/AT MAGERI VILLAGE AND POST
YASALURU HOBLI
SAKALESHAPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISRICT - 573 201.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M.V. SHRIDHAR CHAKRAVARTHI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 573 201.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
4. THE THASILDAR
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
5. THE UPATHASILDAR
YALASURU NADA KACHERI
YALASURU, SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 127.
6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 573 201.
7. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
VANAGURU GRAMAPANCHAYATH OFFICE
SAKALESHAPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 127.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 17.10.2020 AT ANNEXURE-N PASSED BY 5TH
RESPONDENT AS ITS WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY/JURISDICITON
AND IS WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
IT IS PASSED IN CONTRAVENTION OF KLR ACT AND RULES AND
TO DIRECT THE SECOND TO SEVENTH RESPONDENTS TO
CONSIDER THE REQUISITION/APPLICATION OF THE
3
PETITIONERS FOR REGULARISATION UNDER SECTIONS 94A,
94B & 94C KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE
PETITIONERS IN THE LIGHT OF THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE
BY THEM.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition calling in question the order dated 17.10.2020 in No.£Á.PÀ.AiÀÄ.G.vÀ:37/2020-21 by the Deputy Tahsildar, Yelasur, Sakaleshpura Taluk (the fifth respondent). The Deputy Tahsildar has passed the impugned order under Section 192 (A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') calling upon the officers of the State to evict the petitioners from the occupation of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.63 of Mageri village, Yelasur Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk with certain directions to these officers as regards the measures to be taken while evicting the petitioners from the aforesaid extent.
4
2. The petitioners' case is that they are the residents of Mageri village, Yelasur Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District and their house is damaged due to the heavy rain in the year 2018 and as such they were constrained to vacate their residence and living in a relief camp established by the Government. The petitioners like others in the village, who are similarly affected, were constrained to occupy a portion of the land in Sy.No.63 of Mageri village, a gomal land, and have constructed impromptu residence for their living. The petitioners are being targeted because of their political affiliation while similarly situated persons are permitted to occupy the land in Sy.No.63 of Mageri village.
3. The State has filed its objection disputing the assertions that the petitioners' residence is damaged in heavy rain as stated by them and that others are also in unauthorized occupation of the land in Sy.No.63 of Mageri village. In fact the respondents are categorical in their 5 objection statement that they have not allowed any person or individual to put up any construction in land in Sy.No.63 of Mageri village. This land in Sy.No.63 of Mageri village is a vacant land reserved by the Government for Government school to be used as play ground. Insofar as the petitioners' assertion that their residence is damaged because of heavy rain and therefore they are entitled to occupy a portion of the Government land, the State Government Order dated 7.8.2020 and the Central Government Circular dated 8.4.2015 are placed on record to emphasize that any person, whose house has been damaged because of heavy rain, would be entitled to receive compensation as mentioned in the Government Order dated 7.8.2020 and corresponding compensation is paid in accordance with the norms issued vide Circular dated 8.4.2015. Apart from this, the authorities/respondents have placed a number of other records to vindicate their stand that the land in Sy.No.63 of Mageri village is not a gomal land but the land is reserved for 6 the purposes of Government school and the petitioners' house has not been damaged.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the State of Karnataka by its Secretary Revenue Department and others vs. Holeyappa1 and the decision of this Court in Lalitha Sastry vs. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation and others2. The learned counsel relies upon the first decision in support of his proposition that the petitioners, who are in unauthorized occupation of gomal land in Sy.No.63 of Mageri village, would be entitled to seek authorization and until then, the petitioners cannot be evicted from any portion of the land which is in their occupation and the construction put up by them. The learned counsel relies on paragraph-18 of the decision to 1 ILR 2007 KAR 259 2 ILR 2008 KAR 4520 7 emphasize that the provisions under Sections 94A, 94B and 94C of the Act will have to be implemented strictly lest these provisions are rendered redundant and nugatory. The learned counsel relies on the second decision in support of the proposition that for initiation of eviction under Section 192(A) of the Act, the authorities will have to follow the procedure as per the Circular dated 8.4.2015 which is approved by this Court.
5. The first of the submissions as regards the petitioners' unauthorized occupation of 5 guntas in Sy.No.63 of Mageri village need not detain this Court further because the petitioners have not filed any application in the prescribed form as contemplated under Sections 94A, 94B and 94C of the Act. Even otherwise, these provisions enable grant of land in certain cases of agricultural land/grant of land for construction of dwelling house in occupied land subject to certain conditions. It is indubitable that, in terms of Section 8 94B of the Act, persons eligible to apply for grant of land under Section 94A of the Act but has failed to apply for such grant under Sub clause (iv) thereto, may make an application provided that such person was in unauthorized possession of land prior to 1.4.1990 and has continued in possession as mentioned therein. Insofar as Section 94C of the Act the time line would be the first day of January 2015. The petitioners, even according to their own showing, would not be qualified in terms of these provisions to seek regularization or grant.
6. The petitioners' other ground is that they are in unauthorized occupation of land of 5 guntas in Sy.No.63 of Mageri Village because their residence is damaged due to heavy rain which fact is seriously disputed by the respondents. If these assertions by the petitioners are to be true, their remedy would be to seek compensation in terms of the Government order dated 7.8.2020. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of observing that though the impugned 9 order is issued under Section 192-A of the Act, the same shall be given effect to subject to the procedure contemplated under the Circular dated 8.4.2015 and the petitioner, without being prejudiced by the disposal of the writ petition, shall be entitled, subject to all just exceptions in law, to seek compensation in terms of the Government order dated 7.8.2020.
SD/-
JUDGE SA/-
Ct:sr