Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: gomal in K.P. Nanjunath And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 19 March, 1976Matching Fragments
11. Following the aforesaid two decisions, another Bench of this Court held in Vankataramiah v. State of Mysore [(19167) 1 Mys LJ 301] that when a person applies for grant of land, the whole or part of which is reserved for public use or purpose, any proceeding taken for deciding whether a grant should or should not be made, will be of a quasi-judicial nature and that such proceeding involves consideration of rights of individuals or groups of individuals subsisting in such land.
12. In Writ Petn. No. 3785 of 1968 (Kant), the material facts were these. On an application for grant of land in a Gomal, the Tahsildar had recommended sanction of such land. In his order granting that land, the Dy. Commissioner merely referred to the report of the Tahsildar and to the records showing the extent of Gomal land and observed that there was sufficient Gomal land reserved for the village cattle. Quashing the grant made by the Deputy Commissioner, this Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner had not determined the extent of land necessary to be set apart for free pasturage in the village, but appeared to have relied on the report of the Tahsildar and that what the Deputy Commissioner did could not amount to a determination regarding the surplus of Gomal land within the meaning of sub-rule (4) of Rule 97.
13. In the present case, apart from the Mahazar drawn up by local Revenue Officials, no notice was given to the villagers of the application of respondent 4 or of the proposal of the Dy. Commissioner to grant a part of the Gomal lands to respondent 4, nor were the villagers heard in the matter before 20 acres of land in the Gomal was granted to respondent 4. The order of the Deputy Commissioner does not disclose that apart from his relying on the report of the Assistant Commissioner and saying that there was excess extent of Gomal land in the village, there was any determination as required by Rule 97 (4), of the extent of land necessary to be set apart for free pasturage having regard to numbers of different kinds of cattle and other live-stock in that village. There is also no mention in his order of the extent of Gomal land at the time he made that order.
14. The impugned order of the Government shows that the attention of the Government was drawn to the decision of this Court in Writ Petn. No. 3785 of 1968 (Kant). Instead of following that decision, the Government has tried to give its own interpretation to Rule 97 (4) different from the interpretation by the High Court. The Government has observed in the course of its order:
"Where the Gomal already exists and its extent exceeds the requirement of the local cattle in a real sense. Section 97(4) [it ought to be Rule 97 (4)] would not come into force at all. However the High Court judgment cited by the appellants' counsel has utilised the obverse aspect of Rule 97 (4). Where a decision is taken to grant land out of existing Gomal, it implies a determination of the Gomal requirement of the village cattle, and such determination is stated to attract Rule 97 (4). This is to invoke the obverse side of Rule 97 (4). However even under this interpretation what the Deputy Commissioner is expected to do is to carry out a determination of the gomal requirements. It cannot be said that this task of determination is completed merely by putting down a few numbers in an arithmetical calculation; or conversely that it has not been carried out if no such figures are put down. That would be a rather literal application of the expression the Deputy Commissioner shall 'Determine'. What Rule 97 (4) requires is, particularly for its negative application, that the Deputy Commissioner should bear in mind the minimum requirement of Gomal of the village as determined by calculation."
15. In Writ Petn. No. 3785 of 1968 (Kant), this Court was dealing with a case in which there was a Gomal of an extent of 76 acres and 26 guntas and a portion of that Gomal was given for cultivation. This Court ruled that before granting any part of the Gomal land for cultivation, the Deputy Commissioner should, under Rule 97 (4), make a determination regarding the surplus of the Gomal. Yet the Government has observed:
"Where Gomal already exists and its extent exceeds the requirement of the local cattle, in a real sense Section 97(4) [Rule 97 (4)] would not come into force at all."