Karnataka High Court
Ningappa Basappa Harijan And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 5 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)KARLJ302
Author: V. Gopala Gowda
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda
ORDER
The Court
1. The petitioners claim that they are landless agriculturists belonging to Scheduled Caste/Tribes. They were granted different extent of lands in Sy. Nos. 2 and 7 of Naganoor Village. They claim that lands were Government lands. They are aggrieved by the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the 5th respondent.
2. The 5th respondent filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in the aforementioned lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Rules framed thereunder. The Land Tribunal has rejected her application by its order at Annexure-E, dated 20-1-1977. The appeal filed by the 5th respondent against the order of the Land Tribunal was allowed by the erstwhile Land Reforms Appellate Authority by its order at Annexure-F, dated 23-12-1988, the order of Land Tribunal was set aside and 5th respondent was granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question. Pursuant to the same, Certificate in Form 10 under Karnataka Land Reforms Rules as per Annexure-H has been granted in favour of the 5th respondent. Thereafter, the notice at Annexure-J was issued by the Village Accountant that mutation was made in the name of 5th respondent in respect of the land in question on the basis of grant of occupancy rights in her favour by the erstwhile Land Reforms Appellate Authority. Petitioners are seeking to quash Annexures-H and J and to declare the grant of occupancy rights in favour of 5th respondent as null and void contending that the lands are the Government lands and therefore they are not tenanted lands as the original grantee of the land has contravened the terms and conditions of the grant and therefore the lands were resumed to the Government.
3. The petitioners have not sought for quashing the order at Annexure-F of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority granting occupancy rights in favour of 5th respondent. However, they have sought to declare the grant of occupancy rights in her favour as null and void. As long as Annexure-F is in force, the occupancy right granted in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of the land in question will continue. The prayers of the petitioners are improper. On this ground alone the writ petitions are liable to be quashed.
4. It is an admitted fact that the land in question was granted to one Siddappa Hanumanthappa Waddar. He was a party before the Land Tribunal and before the Appellate Authority. But the petitioners have not impleaded him in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.
5. Further the petitioners have not produced documents to show that the original grant made in favour of Siddappa Hanumanthappa Waddar was cancelled by the Government in exercise of its power under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1989. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that the grant of land in question was cancelled and the land was resumed to Government and therefore it is not a tenanted land and grant of occupancy rights in favour of fifth respondent is bad in law cannot be accepted. The Appellate Authority has rightly placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Seena Seregara v Land Tribunal, wherein it is held that if the grantee leases the land in breach of the conditions of grant, the same does not automatically render the lease of land by him as void. It is further held in the said decision that person cultivating the land contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is also a 'tenant'. In the instant case also, even though the lease created by original grantee Siddappa was contrary to the conditions of grant, since the grant was not cancelled in accordance with law, the tenancy of 5th respondent is lawful. It follows that the occupancy rights granted in favour of the 5th respondent is legal and valid and the prayers sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted.
6. The contention put forward by the learned Counsel for petitioners that there cannot be any tenancy in respect of the Government land under Section 106 of the Act placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hanumantha Durga Naik v State of Karnataka, cannot be accepted and the said decision has no application to the facts of the case on hand. As the grant in favour of said Siddappa was not cancelled, the question of resumption of land by the Government does not arise.
7. The grant of land made in favour of the petitioners was also not justified as the land was not available for grant since the earlier grant in favour of Siddappa was not cancelled. Viewed from this angle, there is no merit in these petitions.
8. Writ petitions are dismissed.