Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The submission of Sri. Nagarajappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that petitioners in fact are unauthorised cultivators for a long time; that their applications had been processed and was pending, but it is only due to certain political rivalry and due to two political factions in the village, applications are not considered; that the petitioners have a right to seek for regularization of their unauthorized cultivation in terms of the provisions of Section 94-A of the Act; that even if the land is a gomal land the provisions of Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules specifically provides for diverting even such gomal land by de-reserving the extent earmarked for proposes of pasteurizing the village cattle; that even under Rule 108-I there is no prohibition for granting a land like gomal land to such unauthorised occupants and cultivators as the procedure for regularization of unauthorized cultivation in gomal lands is separately governed under Sections 71 of the Act read with Rule 97 of the Rules; that there is every scope for de-reserving the extent of gomal land if the entire extent of land that had been reserved for that purpose is not so required now and to that extent it can be regularized in favour of the petitioners; that said action can be taken even by the Deputy Commissioner himself and there is no obligation on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to seek any further permission from any other authorities as is required under proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 97 as proviso (iii) to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 97 itself makes an exception of such requirement of permission etc., and therefore, the writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the authorities to regularise the unauthorised cultivation or to dispose of the applications.

13. The land in question being a land which has already been identified and earmarked as gomal land in terms Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the mandate of the provision is that the said land assigned for the purpose shall not be otherwise used without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, which means, the rule is that the land should be retained as gomal land and the exception is whether it can be otherwise used but subject to sanction by the deputy Commissioner again subject to de-reserving such portion of the reserved land, which is subsequently on factual verification found to be not so necessary in view of relevent developments like the cattle population of the Village having come down etc., The exception cannot be worked as the rules in all the cases where people go and just occupy such gomal lands unauthorisedly and seek for regularisation. In fact, the provisions of Section 71 has been expressly indicated to be an exception to disposal of lands or other properties belonging to the State Government. In fact, the provisions of Section 71 being exception to the Provisions of Sections 67 & 69 is very clear. Even a reading of Rule 108-I specifically indicates that the Provisions of Chapter 13-A of the Rules meant for regularisation of unauthorised occupation and cultivation, are not applicable to such lands which are earmarked for special purposes under Section 71 including lands in the nature of gunduthop. burial ground, etc., and a gomal land being one such. It is only action as provided under Rule 97(4) that can come into play and where action as indicated under Rule 97 for excluding any land, which has been described as gomal land has not been taken, no person can claim a right for regularization of his authorised or unauthorised cultivation of such gomal land and therefore, the applications of the petitioners praying for regularization in terms of Sections 94-A read with chapter 13-A are not tenable and are liable to be dismissed.

18. Provisions of Section 69 of the Act had a very laudable object of distributing the surplus lands for the purpose of encouraging the landless people who utilise such lands for agriculture. industry or such other public utitlities. Likewise, the provisions of Section 71 of the Act has still more laudable object to ensure that lands which had been assigned for special purpose would not be diverted. Earmarking a land for free pasteurization of village cattle sub-serves the interest of the community in a country that is essentially agriculture based. It is very necessary that such facilities have to be to be accorded to the farmers, as farmers by themselves are not capable of growing grass or producing fodder for their cattle for want of sufficient extent of their own lands. Then cattle invariably used to stray into the neighbouring lands or forest area etc., with a view to avoid such situations, reservation for gomal land was done. Over a period of time, no doubt the number of cattle might have got reduced but villagers still remain agricultural based and farmers continue to depend on cattle. Areas available for grazing of cattle, greenery, have got reduced over all on account of vast extents of lands becoming urbanised and rapid urbanisation has not spared villages either. Non agricultural activities have proliferated and the demand for land has increased day by day. Vast extents of land which has been earmarked for such community purposes like gomal land have become the prime target of the greedy. Local politicians eye on it for their personal gains, set up people to grab such lands; applications are made by syndicates in benami and what not. Available lands are grabbed by the powerful and greedy persons and the like at the cost of community even when there in absolute need for maintaining such lands as gomal lands and to ensure that they subserve the common interest of the community. Without any application of mind or thought and at the behest of greedy political bosses, bureaucrats threw to winds the relevent statutory provisions, subvert the provisions and virtually sell away government lands in the guise of granting of lands. To further compound the situation such persons even seek aid of the Court praying for issue of directions to the respondents to legitimise their illegal activities and directions and mandamus are issued by this Court. More often than not such directions come in handy for conniving and fraud intent officials to put a seal of legitimacy for their arbitrary and illegal actions.

(Underlining Supplied)

22. There is neither any occasion to quash notice as the petitoners have only been asked not to carry on their activities, as such activities had hitherto created law and order problems in the village and was a hurdle to maintain peace and tranquility in the village nor is there any occasion for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus as the petitioners have no legal/statutory right in their favour. Writ Petition has to be dismissed.

23. Respondents are directed to take further action in accordance with law in pursuance of the notices they have issued to the petitioners. It is specifically made clear that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued from this Court to direct the respondents to regularise any unauthorised cultivation of any gomal land or any other reserved land which has been reserved under the provisions of Section 69 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. No writ lies for issuing directions to the Government or the officials of the Government to compel them to act contrary to the statutory provisions. Respondents are directed to ensure that if any standing crop was there, it is harvested and the proceeds given to such persons who had raised the crop and to ensure that henceforth the land is retained as a gomal land; that no unauthorized encroachments are allowed on the land and land is preserved for the common utility of the community of the village. It is hereby directed that the respondents are bound to maintain the land as gomal land.