Karnataka High Court
G V Ananth vs D K Nagaraj on 19 July, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, R Devdas
-1- W.A.No.2268/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT APPEAL NO.2268 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1) G.V. ANANTH
S/O VENKATAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
2) SRINIVASA G.R.
S/O B.V.RAMACHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
3) SEETHARAM
S/O DUGGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
4) NARAHARI
S/O SHANKARNARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
5) P.R. KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
APPELLANTS ARE AGRICULTURISTS
AND R/O KHANDIKA MAJARA
TALAGUPPA HOBLI
SAGAR TALUK- 577 401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
-2- W.A.No.2268/2017
APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3 & 5
SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1) D K NAGARAJ
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/OF KHANDIKA MAJARA
GEEJAGARU VILLAGE
TALAGUPPA HOBLI
SAGAR TALUK - 577 401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
2) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
3) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGAR SUB DIVISION
SAGAR - 577 401.
4) THE TAHASILDHAR
SAGAR TALUK
SAGAR - 577 401.
5) SRIDHAR G G
S/O GANAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
6) SUBBARAYA G P
S/O PANIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.5 & 6 ARE
R/O KHANDIKA MAJARA
TALAGUPPA HOBLI
SAGAR TALUK-577 401
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
( BY S. S. MAHENDRA, AGA., FOR R2 TO R4)
-3- W.A.No.2268/2017
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
28/2/2017 IN WP 14264/2008 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT
APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN WP 14264/2008 AS PRAYED
FOR THEREIN.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this intra Court appeal, appellants seek to assail the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14264/2008.
The relevant facts are that the 1st respondent - Sri.D.K.Nagaraj made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, seeking regularization of his alleged unauthorized occupation to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.105 of Khandika Majara village, Sagara Taluk, Shivamogga District. The appellants herein raised objections to the application made by the 1st respondent. The objections notwithstanding, the lands in question were regularized in favour of the 1st respondent. An appeal filed by the appellants herein came to be rejected and thereafter a -4- W.A.No.2268/2017 revision was preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the revision and set-aside the order of regularization made in favour of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved, the 1st respondent invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in W.P.No.14264/2008 (KLR-RR/SUR).
The learned Single Judge has observed that the Tribunal relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Siddappa and Others Vs State of Karnataka and Another, reported 1998 (5) Kar. L.J. 36. However, the learned single Judge has taken note of a subsequent Division Bench judgment in the case of the State of Karnataka by its Secretary, Revenue Department and Others Vs. Holeyappa and Another, reported in ILR 2007 Kar. 259 and allowed the writ petition.
Heard Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
The thrust of the arguments on behalf of the appellants is that the authorities have violated the provisions of Sections -5- W.A.No.2268/2017 94A and 94B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rule 108D(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. It is contended that there was no material on record before the authorities to establish that the 1st respondent was in unauthorized cultivation of land in question three years prior to the appointed day; formal order as required under Rule 108D(3) was not passed by the Tahasildar; and the committee constituted for grant of land under Sections 94A and 94B have flouted mandatory procedures before passing the order of regularization. It is further contended that the directions issued by this Court in the case of Holeyappa and Another (supra) have not been followed, in as much as, the Deputy Commissioner has not identified the gomal lands, their extent and has not passed orders of dereservation keeping in mind the cattle population, eligibility of unauthorized occupants for regularization in terms of Sections 94A, 94B and 94C of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
This Court, while dealing with the powers of the revenue authorities in reducing the extent of land reserved for grazing of cattle, in the case of Sri. T.V.Narayanaswamy and -6- W.A.No.2268/2017 Another Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.14857/2018 (KLR-LG-PIL), decided on 26.06.2018, has elaborately discussed the powers under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Rule 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. It is held that the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to reduce the extent of grazing lands (gomal) keeping in mind the cattle population, multifaceted and myriad public welfare activities; and several such requirements need to be balanced by the authorities in an appropriate manner.
The material on record evidence the fact that in the present case, the authorities have considered the objections raised by the appellants herein. The authorities have specifically stated that Sy.No.105 of Khandika Majara village consists of 85-06 acres, out of which 22.08 acres is granted to MPM, 0.04 guntas to Ashraya Samithi, Sagar and the remaining land reserved for gomal is 62.38 acres, as per the revenue records of the year 2001-02. Subsequently, it is noticed that 4 acres are reserved for play ground and 2 acres for graveyard. Though the 1st respondent herein made an -7- W.A.No.2268/2017 application seeking regularization of 2 acres, it was found on inspection that he had 1 acre 14 guntas under unauthorized cultivation. The authorities have taken the relevant factors into consideration before regularizing 1 acre 14 guntas in favour of the 1st respondent herein.
It is also noticeable that the order of regularization in favour of the 1st respondent, was made as back as on 12.03.2003. Keeping the above aspects in mind, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the revenue authorities regularizing unauthorized occupation in cultivation of the 1st respondent herein, call for no interference. We are in respectful agreement with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal, accordingly stands dismissed.
SD/-
CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
JUDGE DL