Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Page 0339

1. The Appellants in W.A. No. 3813/2005 and Petitioner in W.P. No. 21221/2005 claim that they are unauthorisedly cultivating land in Sy. No. 32 of Page 0340 Chikkashakuna Village, Somba Taluk in Shimoga District They filed applications in Form No. 50 under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, r/w Rule 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966, (hereinafter called as 'KLR Act' and Rules' in short) seeking regularisation of their unauthorized occupation of the land, but the Tahsildar issued Notices dated 21-6-2004 calling upon them not to cultivate the land until their applications for regularisation are disposed of. Being aggrieved by the same, they have filed the writ petitions seeking to quash the notices and for a Writ of Mandamus to the authorities to regularise their unauthorised cultivation of the land in question. The writ petition of Appellants in W.A. No. 3813/2005 was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 22-9-2005. The learned single Judge held that direction cannot be issued to the authorities to regularise the unauthorised cultivation of Gomal land and the authorities were directed to retain the gomal land. The learned single Judge also directed the Registrar General of this Court to forward a copy of the order to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State, the Secretary to Revenue Department and the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka with a direction to ensure follow-up action pursuant to the notices issued. Being aggrieved by the same, the State, the Land Grant Committee and the Tahsildar filed W.A. No. 1353/2006 while the unauthorised occupants filed W.A. No. 3813/2005 questioning the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge. Since W.P. No. 21221/2005 was not disposed of, the same is clubbed along: with the two writ appeals.

4. It is no doubt true that certain lands are reserved under Section 71 of the KLR Act for pasturage for village cattle, for forest reserves or any other public purpose. The lands reserved for cattle pasturage are called "Gomal Lands". The land involved in these cases is a Gomal land. As per Rule 97 of the Rules, the reservation of Gomal land shall be 12 hectares for every 100 cattle, which shall include cow, buffaloes, goats, sheep and calves. This is clear from the Explanation to the said Rule. As per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 97, the Deputy Commissioner can either increase or decrease the extent of reservation for this purpose.

13. Keeping in view the aforementioned provisions of the KLR Act: and Rules, we now proceed to deal with the merits of these cases. The land involved in this case is admittedly Gomal land. The extent required for pasturage of cattle depends upon the population of the cattle in that locality. It is no doubt true that the land in question was reserved for pasturage long back. Due to passage of time and the use of tractors and tillers an account of application of latest technology and mechanism in the agricultural sector formers gave-up using oxen, buffaloes, goat and sheep rearing to a considerable extent Peasants experienced the brunt of high expenditure feeding and maintenance of cattle. What was the cattle population when the land in question was reserved for Gomal, is not the same as of now. In place of cattle population, human population occupied to a large extent as its growth has been steadily increased from the time and requirement of land for the purpose of grazing land is considerably reduced.

14. The best person to arrive at a conclusion as to the actual requirement of gomal land depending upon the statistics of present cattle population is the Deputy Commissioner of each District. He has to take a decision whether to retain the entire extent of the land as Gomal or to reduce its extent or even to divert it in case there is no requirement for pasturage. In our view, the learned single Judge has failed to consider these aspects of the matter while passing the order under appeals.

15. We have to say that the learned Addl. Government Advocate has lightly submitted that by issuing the directions in the impugned order, the learned Page 0344 single Judge has defeated the object and purpose of the provisions relating to regularisation of unauthorised occupation and made those provisions redundant and nugatory. A light given under a statute in favour of unauthorised occupants can neither be taken away nor the provisions made nugatory unless the provisions of Sections 94A, 94B and 94C of the Act and Rules referred to supra are declared untravires or unconstitutional.