( 1 ) THE question involved in this pefition under Art. 226, is of considerable importance and that is, whether under the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rule, 1960 (hereinafter referred to. as 'the Rules'), the Dy. Commr. of a district is competent to resume land for contravening the terms of its grant.

( 2 ) THE facts leading up to this petition are In 1962, the Tahsildar shimoga. Taluk granted two acres of land each to some of the landless residents of the village. The grant was made at an upset price of Rs. 25 per acre followed by the issuance of grant certincate in which it was staged that the grantees shall not alienate the land for 15 years. The grantees remained in. possession for about 6 years, and thereafter, they sold their land to the petitioner for valid consideration.

( 3 ) ON coming to know of the alienation, the Dy. Commr. issued notices to the grantees to show cause why the land granted to them, should not be resumed. In the enquiry held by Mm, the petitioner was also heard in the matter. He resisted in vain, the action of the Dy. Commr who by his order dt. 20th Feb. 1971, cancelled the said grants and resumed the land free from all encumbrances with a direction to evict the petitioner therefrom.

( 4 ) AGAINST the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the div. Commr. who dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner has no right to prefer an appeal. His further appeal to the Govt. , was also dismissed, but on different grounds.

( 5 ) THIS petition now brought is primarily on the contention that the dy. Commr. has no jurisdiction to resume the land. The relevant provisions which have material bearing on the question are Ss. 3 and 8 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rule 43g (7) of the Rules. Section 3 provides : section 8 provides : rule 43g (7) provides:

( 6 ) IT may be relevant to refer to Rule 43-1 of the Rules. The said rule confers power to cancel a grant on the authority which granted it, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations. Under the said rule, the authority which granted the land has no power to cancel it on the ground that the grantee has contravened the terms of the grant.

( 7 ) RULE 43g (7) simply states that the grant is liable to be teminated and the land resumed if any o,f the conditions of the grant is not fulfilled. It does not specify the authority empowered to cancel the grant. In these circumstances, whether it would be competent for the Dy. Commr to terminate the grant and resume the land to Govt. is the only question for decision. The power of the Dy. Commr. is located under S. 8 of the Kar. Land revenue Act. He could, in his district, exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on him under the Land Revenue Act or under any law for the time being in force. Obviously, there is no specific provision in the Land Revenue Act conferring power on him, to cancel any grant either made by him or any other authority. There is no other law by which such power is conferred upon him. The Dy. Commr. may also exercise such powers and discharge such duties as are conferred and imposed on Asst. Commr. under the Land Revenue Act. But the power to resume land for the contravention of the terms of any grant has not been given by any law to the Asst. Commr. Therefore, there, is no question off the Dy. Commr. exercising the power of the Asst. Commr. In all other matters which are not specially provided for by law, Dy. Commr. shall act according to the instructions of the State Govt. But so far as the grant of land and its resumption are concerned it cannot be said that they are masters not specially provided for by law. They are regulated by the provisions of the Land Grant Rules. Therefore, the Dy. Commr. on the said matters coud not have acted at the instructions of the Govt. Apart from that, it is not the case of the respondents that the Dy. Commr, has terminated the grant and resumed the land at the instruc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document