Karnataka High Court
Smt Suman Narayan Shanbag vs State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
fa
This petison is filed 'on 8/2) 2008 calling in
(2006; 28/10/:
guestion «the -.orcers dt.
Annex.A & > 1B, of the "18 respondent anc the
endorsements: dt. 2) G6-2007, 2/12/2006, Annex.
>» in so faras they relate to imposing the condition
fo the petitioner. In addition
toned
re
sone
"fiomer weeks the rehef of a direction to the
to grant permission to alienate 3 acres of
ade be gee od "hag omy cla gs ort AL. GOL ft Ft ew be Alo, Th Fen oh
the land bearing T.S.No.S26/1, Block No.oi, Ward
No.Z2 in terms of Rule 18 of the Karnataka Land Grand
Rules.
io
Petition is not opposed by ling statement of.
3. The petitioner claimsto carry-on business in
the name and style of .M/s>. Shanbhagh & Co.,
manufacturing cement pipes, a small-scale industry, in
IO acres of lend. in, T.S.No.326,. Ward No.22, Block
No.3) at Bandiharei
Ae GFR order dt. 2B&/2/
7h
rr
Nene?
fa :
oer
ym
. Meanett
Se!
pas
Nene
vest
of the governmerit, The tals when enhanced to
ernnanced retital at < 1,800/- per annum. According to
the. petrioner, despite the request to renew the lease
3
> rentals, no action was taken.
4 500/-. By order dt.
lepey edo cee euesureppaeeto- Sy oe
relPid) OF) Tel VITe rit of os 12 OF
under Rule 2? of the Karnataka Land
[96° (for shert, Rules). That amount, when pabkiand
acknowledged by the State >wlecd ta &.
24 /{1/2004, Annexcl,
yéd bythe Taksildar. -- [t
appears, the petitioner immediately "thereafter, sought!
a
said. land'on the premise of
permission ftocalienate t
being aged amd tunable 40 casTy or the business, which
was -responded "to. by the State, calling upon the
petitioner-fo pay <.52,50,000/- to the government as a
to have made a request to relax the
. condition Can payment of € 52,50,000/- by
'presente ation di. 6/7/2006, which the State
considered and by reply, confirmed that, 1 she intended
to-miienate the land, she ought to deposit ¥ 52,50,000/-
and im case she inducts a partner in her
need not deposit the said sum. Yet again, the petitioner
made another representation dt. 17/11/2006. whence
4
é
the Deputy Commissioner reiterated the conditions
imposed by the State in the matter of alienating. the.
land. Dnssatisfied with the reply. the petitiorier is. Saict.
Paves ERG] ;
fo nave petitioned the Hon'ble Minister for Revenile, by
letter dt. 30/4/2007... Annex:
Rule TS of
considered for grant of permissien to alienate, which
sd in this petition.
jaded. to Fras re
peta ey Tey peeps Pela ye
fCLSUIPLPIS 05 ACTOS Orig
mndustriahiand, was alldtted to the petitioner by order
© 12,00,035/
3/41/2004 Annex, for varie
the value of each acre of land was ¢
<"as:per sales statistics during the preceding 3
years: Hois mot known as to why and for what
the land was reduced from its
© GO,00,000/- ta
market value of approsomate
12,00.035/- since the order, Annex.J, does not animate
reasons. Be that as it may, on payment of f 12.60;9035,
the Tahsiidar issuec a certificate, Annex.bo° dr
1/2004, just a day after the ec eder of tie: Deputy
Commissioner, which is rather ostvan ge. > The.
Annex.J, of the Deputy Comisission rer slates. that the
eranl 18 im exercise ofa jurisd iétrar.vested under Rule 22
af the Files hick 7 les: Pane +e.
of the Rules, which reads this.
"
22. Grant of iand to Industrial concerns -
fi} Lands'. meaty 7 be. grante ed. by the Deputy
Lo
Conrissigner to- Ine! Li stric ul. conce PLS redistered
(Deveiopment anal
(Central Act} and to small
To yaei
ms,
overnment, sell,
gyt a
ailenate | LL OFA 1 manner such
mortgage. irepnis
proposes fo
gift or otherwise a
such land, the tedustrial
make the first offer
wd uf fF
ne Se iy eB Pb peg Poe am oo
/concern may dispese of the land.
industria
--_
to arly person;
netormiore thar fieo nectares of
;
oO any small scale
1 ounetude hi
TWErSION TIP
anything contained in
ve.
AFL
ee may mortgage the land
of
-apsucn Financial Corporations as mal
Oo, Lam Measuring GO acres granted
mrs
cancion that the petitioner would not, withoul the
permission of the State Government sell, lease,
transier, et or otherwise alienate, in any
oa
lane within a period of BE
grant. Hf the
é Lag ene nag $
trearnsier, eit
ti
a
a
-
oF ns
i) ~ EE pon gen ron obey ny EN he py dee eyes . «cn econ oon eue eo er ee oer tO the State .wovernment and if re ob propose.to take the land, then the povermment doe uf.the land to any person.
pélilioner may 22 takes it clear that the Velie ane conversion ess conversion line is exempted.
6. "in the context of Rule 22, it is apparent that best known to the State, allotted to the petitioner for ? cme ope ¥.,. a tea edice a a re ee P2Z,OG OSS /-. Im other words, the:
SO acres of land and : pemy therefore, in violation of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 22. None has questioned this order and therefore this ceurt-only ads to notice it for the reasons, which follow.
7. If viewed in the hight. o "Ride. 2! Bh permission granted by the State "tothe setitioner on pavment of % 52.50,000/- or im the event, of induecting a partner to carry on business, when *°52,50,000/- need not be deposited, are-.condiions which are mot in compliance with' Sub-rule and hence unsustamable. In that view ofthe matter, the Jetters dt. 7/2/2006, and the. respondents, »* are arbitrary, "LUYSLISfaiia ple.
Ales ea pune og renames yeeegbaneh oy pepyan habia ba es haus eyprepentoodes ATELEN. LL, IWCOPrporare d a condition that the BPant tS contention iS unsustainable. [| say so because, the order dt. 28/11/2004, Annex.J, of the Deputy Commissioner makes it abundantly clear thet the grant. ig im exercise of jurisdiction under Rule. 22 . and therefore, merely because a. Tahsildar, issued. a. cyclostyled order by filling up the blanks incorporating a clause that the grant. is governed by Ruie Ws of the Rules, despite the power 'exercised, by the Deputy contention. ven otheiwise, Rule i8 is in respect of grant of building sites while the 3 acres of land granted to the petitioner is admittedly not a building site, but industrial land. Thus the applicability of Rule 1& of the Rules to the grant, is impermissible and no direction ms can . be issued to consider the petitioner's request under Rule 18:00 2 », 9. Learned government advocate is correct in his submission that Rule 27 of the Rules invests power in -- g the State to suo motto or on the recommendation oF the Divisional Commissioner or Deputy Commissioners if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of ANY Case or Classes of case, if is just and reasona' ole 6 relax. ANN. of {he provisions of these Rules, it may, by order direct. such relaxation, recording reasons for such. r subject to such conditions a8 maybe specified in the orders and thereupon lands 'miay he: granted in such a "accordance with that direction, However "an esert case, the question is not the ¢ F according permission to yorn-alienation period and th ere fore Ru le 47 has no application.
"20.5 Inthe fact situation, least said the better about the og by the Deputy Commissio N Q & OQ Ae) nd 1 :
-- year 2 2004, contrary to Rule 22/2), as z rot the market value and the conversion ch arge for 3 ft Cres ol aati a .
ph Annex.A; dt. 2 Annex.B and endorsements dt. 21/28-6-2007, Annex.© and 2/12/2006, Annex.D are quashed and remitted. for consideration oy the State, strictlyvoin accorcance. with Woe EE Rule 22 of the Rules and in thé light of the observations - Supra.