Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 8085 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 8085 OF 2020 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. THIPPESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCCUPATION: COOLIE,
2. SRI R. VENKATESH
Digitally signed by S/O. RAJAPPA
JUANITA
THEJESWINI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF OCCUPATION:COOLIE,
KARNATAKA
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT AGARADHAHALLI VILLAGE
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 227.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA,
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-2-
WP No. 8085 of 2020
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
3. THE TAHASHILDAR
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADESHWARAN C.N., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-3 TO OBEY THE ORDER OF THE R-2 DTD.
16.12.2017 IN LND/CR/828/2017-2018 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-C, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED, AND DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE
CASE OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 8085 of 2020
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division had set aside the endorsement dated 07.12.2017 earlier issued by the respondent-Tahsildar rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners in Form No.50 and 53 and directed the Tahsildar to place the application once again before the 'Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation' with a direction to the Committee to reconsider the applications, the Tahsildar has not placed the applications before the Committee. Therefore, the prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Bhadravathi Taluk to obey the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 16.12.2017.
-4-WP No. 8085 of 2020
3. Having regard to the undisputed facts that the endorsement dated 07.12.2017 issued by the Tahsildar rejecting the applications on the ground that there is no availability of government/gomal land, for being regularized in favour of the applicants was quashed by the Assistant Commissioner and that he had specifically directed the respondent-Tahsildar to place the applications before the Committee, the Tahsildar has not followed the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner.
4. Moreover, recently, this Court had an occasion to consider one such endorsement issued by the Tahsildar rejecting the applications on the same ground. This Court in W.P.No.17397/2022 by order dated 03.09.2022 has held as follows;
"... ... This Court finds that in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, an exception is carved out insofar as the power of the Deputy Commissioner in passing orders reducing the gomal lands, insofar as -5- WP No. 8085 of 2020 the applications made seeking regularization of unauthorized cultivation under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules, 1966. This would mean that when the Deputy Commissioner is considering the applications of ineligible persons in terms of Rule 108-CCC arising out of Section 94-A, on the report submitted by the Tahsildar who forwards list of ineligible applications to the Deputy Commissioner for necessary action, the Deputy Commissioner is required to reject such ineligible applications and the Tahsildar is thereafter required to place all the eligible applications with suitable recommendations before the Committee or additional committee as the case may be. In the considered opinion of this Court, in so far as the ineligible applications are concerned, other than what is provided as an eligibility for grant in terms of 108-F of the Rules, the other conditions can be found under Section 94-A of the Act itself. One of them being the prohibited distance within which if the land falls, it cannot be granted. The submission of the learned AGA that certain lands not to be -6- WP No. 8085 of 2020 granted in terms enumerated in 108-F of the Rules is required to be accepted. However, in the present case, this Court finds that the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order of rejection on the ground that the land is a gomal land and therefore it cannot be regularized in favour of the petitioners. This, is in contravention to the provision of law requiring regularization of certain lands as provided under Section 94-A of the Act.
There cannot be any cavil that all applications filed under Section 94-A of the Act are in respect of Government lands which are also known as gomal land. When an exception is carved out in sub-rule (4) of Rule 97 of the Rules exempting the application of the Rule 97 which empowers the Deputy Commissioner to pass orders de- reserving gomal land taking consideration the cattle population and the requirements of land to be reserved for pasteurizing, having regard to any application made seeking regularization of unauthorized cultivation under Chapter XIIIA of the Rules, the Deputy Commissioner could not have rejected the -7- WP No. 8085 of 2020 application solely on the ground that the lands are gomala lands and they cannot be regularized in favour of the applicants.
Having regard to the above findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, insofar as the petitioners applications are concerned, cannot be sustained. ... ..."
5. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Bhadravathi Taluk to place the application filed by the petitioners in Form No.50 and 53 before the "Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation" within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The Committee for Regularization shall thereafter consider the applications having regard to the observations made by this Court hereinabove and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any -8- WP No. 8085 of 2020 rate within a period of two months from the date of the applications being placed before the Committee.
Ordered accordingly.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to filed Memo of Appearance within a period of four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL