Karnataka High Court
The Mythic Society vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.33845/2017 (KLR - LG)
BETWEEN:
THE MYTHIC SOCIETY,
NO.14/3, SRI.MAHARSHI
ARAVINDA BHAVAN,
NRUPUTHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
HONORARY SECRETARY,
SRI.V.NAGARAJ.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.MADHUSUDHANA ADIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
D.C.OFFICE,
KANDAYA BHAVAN COMPLEX,
2
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU NORTH [ADDITIONAL] TALUK,
YELHANKHA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO D.C.
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE COMPOUND,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.R.NITHYANANDA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF IMPLEADING R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2017
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - P TO THIS W.P. AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for quashing of the order No.RD 219 LGB 2015 dated 20.6.2017 - Annexure-'P' passed by first respondent whereunder an extent of 10 acres of land granted 3 to petitioner in Sy.No.79 of Avalahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk came to be cancelled by revoking order of grant dated 28.10.2011.
2. Petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1960 and it was established in the year 1909, with an object to permit research of study in the fields of History, Mythology, Philosophy and Religion etc., It has a unique library which has 40,000 books, ancient books authored by renowned scholars having national and international repute. Infact, a quarterly journal is also being published for the past 107 years and as such, petitioner - Society has gained international recognition. It has also held several seminars in which eminent persons have participated and is also carrying out promotion of art and art work. In order to expand its activities and promote research in history and allied subjects and to have tranquil and congenial premises with all residential facilities for conducting research 4 to be taken up by the scholars away from the city, petitioner approached the Government of Karnataka for grant of land in and around Bangalore by filing an application on 12.07.2011
- Annexure-'D'. After considering the request of the petitioner, appropriate Government by order dated 28.10.2011 - Annexure-'E' granted 10 acres of land in Sy.No.79 as noted herein above by reducing the extent of gomal land which was to an extent of 103.30 acres by exercising its power under Section 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') by fixing the market value as 30% of the prevailing market rate. A communication was also forwarded by second respondent to the petitioner - Society on 29.12.2011- Annexure-'F' calling upon petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.1,80,00,055/- (Rupees One crore eighty lakhs and fifty five only), which has been remitted by petitioner as evident from Annexure-'G'. Pursuant to same, an order came to be passed on 17.01.2012
- Annexure-'H' stipulating certain conditions and one of the 5 condition stipulated is directing petitioner - Society to utilize the said land for the purpose of which it has been allotted within a period of two years. On such allotment being made, and there being no demarcation or identification of property so granted, petitioner submitted representations on 17.01.2012, 14.02.2013 and 16.12.2014 to third respondent with a request to identify and hand over possession of the land allotted to it. Though said representations came to be received by third respondent, no steps were taken and after lapse of three years from the date of receipt of representations, a notice dated 16.12.2015 - Annexure-'N' came to be issued to petitioner stating thereunder that petitioner has violated conditions of grant and as such called upon petitioner to show cause as to why allotment of land should not be cancelled. Hence, petitioner submitted a representation / reply on 23.12.2015 - Annexure-'O' and it was specifically pleaded in the reply to the show cause notice that neither there is demarcation nor identification or 6 possession of the land granted to it had been handed over and as such violation of term of grant was denied. However, under the impugned order dated 20.6.2017 without considering these facts, first respondent passed an order, revoking order of grant dated 28.10.2011 - Annexure-'E' and thereby, cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner by its order dated 20.6.2017 - Annexure- 'P'. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has reiterated grounds urged in the petition and has specifically contended that when possession of land granted to petitioner has not been handed over, question of non-utilization of said land does not arise and as such, he has prayed for impugned order be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 by referring to the affidavit of 7 respondent contend that conditions stipulated under the grant was to the effect that petitioner should utilize the land in question which allotted and said undertaking having not been complied. Penal clause stipulated in the order of grant would be attracted the right of the Government to cancel the grant and has been accordingly, exercised and there is no infirmity whatsoever. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. In the light of the aforestated facts, it would clearly emerge from the Government Order dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure-'H'), the conditions imposed for grant or allotment of subject land to petitioner was to the following effect:-
1. "¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÁÌV ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉAiÉÆÃ, CzÉà GzÉÝñÀPÉÌ 2 ªÀµÀðzÉƼÀUÉ ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
2. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß 2 ªÀµÀðZÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸À¢zÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è CxÀªÁ ¨ÉÃgÉ GzÉÝñÀPÉÌ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸ÀzÉà DzÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄÄ£ÀÄ߸ÀÆZÀ£É ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ, ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉUÉ »AzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.8
3. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄ CxÀªÁ d«Ää£À MAzÀÄ ¨sÁUÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ GzÉÝñÀPÉÌ CUÀvÀåªÁzÀ°è »AzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
4. vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÆÃdt ªÀiÁr¹, UÀr UÀÄgÀÄw¹, ¢ «ÄyPï ¸ÉÆøÉÊn JAzÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁV £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ."
6. From perusal of aforesaid conditions, it would clearly indicate that on account of alleged violation of condition No.2, grant made in favour of petitioner has been revoked by impugned order dated 20.6.2017 - Annexure-'P' . A plain reading of condition invoked would disclose that "in the event of petitioner not utilizing the land granted / allotted to it within a period of two years for the purpose for which it was allotted, the Department of Revenue would be empowered to take back the said land". In this background, when records are perused, it would clearly disclose that after order of grant / allotment being made in favour of petitioner on 17.01.2012, petitioner has been knocking at the doors of first respondent to identify 9 the land and has sought for demarcation of said land with a request to hand over possession of said land. This request or prayer made by the petitioner has remained unattended. In this background, it cannot be expected by respondents that petitioner should undertake its activities by utilizing the land allotted to it, when land itself has not been identified and possession handed over. Only on the ground land has been allotted, that would not empower the appropriate Government to cancel the grant, when it has not identified the land so allotted is demarcated and possession has been handed over to petitioner. Undisputedly, total extent of land which has been granted / allotted in favour of the petitioner in Sy.No.79 of Avalahalli village is 103.30 acres and entire extent even according to the appropriate Government is a gomal land and in exercise of powers vested under Section 97(4) of the Act, the extent of gomal land has been reduced and petitioner has been granted land to an extent of 10 acres. Thus, it was incumbent upon State and its Authorities to identify the 10 extent of land namely, 10 acres which has been allotted to petitioner and only after having handed over possession of same, the time schedule stipulated under the order of grant would start ticking or in other words petitioner would be required to comply with condition No.2. In the absence of any proof of demarcation of 10 acres of land and possession having been handed over to the petitioner, it would lie in the mouth of State to contend that there has been violation of condition No.2 stipulated under the order of grant.
7. For the reasons aforestated, this Court is of the considered view that impugned order would not stand in the test of law.
Hence, the following:-
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.11
(ii) Order No.RD 219 LGB 2015 dated 20.6.2017 -
Annexure-'P' passed by first respondent is quashed.
(iii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to identify the land in Sy.No.79 to the extent of 10 acres which has been granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17.01.2012 - Annexure- 'H', by demarcating said land by preparing a sketch and hand over possession of the same expeditiously at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv). No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE VMB