Back
1987 Supreme(Kar) 5
Karnataka High Court
Thimmaiah - Appellant
Versus
Kariyappa - Respondent
Decided On : 01-07-87
W.P. : 15504 of 1984
K.K.Thayamma, M.S.GOPALKRISHNA, S.LAKSHMINARAYAN REDDY
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of land was subject to Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land grant Rules 1969, which allows cancellation of the grant if obtained by false or fraudulent representations.
Headnote:
LAND GRANT - Validity of the grant of land - Karnataka Land grant Rules 1969 - Rule 25 - Government Order dated 1-9-1977 - Relaxation of conditions for grant of land - Deputy Commissioner's order - Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order - Special Deputy Commissioner's order - Spot inspection - Misrepresentation - Suppression of material facts - Remand order - Gomal land appropriation - Government Servants' entitlement to land grant - Landless agriculturists - Rule 25 invocation - Dismissal of appeals - Deputy Commissioner's power under Rule 25
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the challenge to the grant of land by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners argue that the grant was made after due enquiry and that the respondents were not in occupation of the granted lands. The respondents, on the other hand, claim that the petitioners were not in unauthorized occupation of the land and that they themselves were entitled to the grant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant was made under the Karnataka Land grant Rules 1969 and was subject to Rule 25, which allows cancellation of the grant if obtained by false or fraudulent representations. The court also upheld the order of remand made by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issues: 1) Whether Rule 25 of the Rules is available in this case? 2) Whether the order of remand made by the Tribunal requires interference?
Ratio Decidendi: The grant was made under the Rules and was subject to Rule 25, which allows cancellation of the grant if obtained by false or fraudulent representations. The court upheld the order of remand made by the Tribunal, stating that the Deputy Commissioner can consider the contentions raised by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and it was clarified that all contentions except the one relating to the maintainability of the application were left open.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in W. Ps. 2205 to 2207/85 are also the petitioners in W. Ps. 2301 and 2302/85. In W. Ps. 15504/84 and W. Ps. 2301 and 2302 of 1985, the order dated 17th November 1980, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, in Case No. L. N. D. RA. 1/80-81 and also the order dated 16-6-1984 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, in appeal Nos. 383, 384 and 385 of 1980, are challenged. Whereas, in W. Ps. 2205 to 2207 of 1985, the order dated 28th march, 1981 passed by the Special deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in No. LND RA 221/80-81 ; and the order dated 16-6-1984 passed by the Karnataka appellate Tribunal in appeal Nos. 115 of 1982 and 228 of 1981 are challenged.
( 2 ) IN these petitions the subject- matter relates to validity of the grant of land. An extent of 4 acres in favour of thimmaiah and 4 acres in favour of Sadan and two acres in favour of Goolappa, granted by the Deputy Commissioner, bangalore, in No. B. Dis. L. and D (CR 202/77-78) dated 12th October 1978, is challenged.
( 3 ) SHRI M. S. Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the applications filed by the respondents under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land grant Rules 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), were not maintainable because the grant of lands in question was made in favour of the petitioners under the order issued by the State government in No. RD 105 LGP 77, dated 1-9-1977, produced as Annexure-A ; that rule 25 of the Rules, is available only when the land is granted under the normal circumstances in accordance with the Rules ; that the grant has been made in favour of the petitioners after holding due enquiry and on being satisfied that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation of the portions in Sy. No. 20 granted in their favour that the respondents have never been in occupation of the lands in question granted to the petitioners. "it is alternatively submitted that rule 25 of the Rules, is attracted only when the grant is obtained on suppression of material facts or on misrepresentation ; and as the grant in question is not obtained either by suppression of material facts or by misrepresentation, therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, setting aside the grant is arbitrary, that the Tribunal, has rightly held that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable as the same has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to file their objections and without hearing ; but it ought not to have further remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It is also further contended that the grant made in favour of the petitioners was a subject matter of discussion in the Legislative assembly ; therefore the Government went into the matter and found that there was nothing wrong with the grant made in favour of the petitioners, hence there is no question of interference with the grant made in favour of the petitioners, which has been, on a special enquiry found to have been properly made. "it is also the contention of the petitioners that Thimmiah s/o Kivuda thimmaiah and Honneerappa-the father of the petitioners, by way of W. Ps. 12469/79 challenged the very grant, which was dismissed on 12-10-1979; that the Misc. Petition No. 733/79 filed for restoration was also dismissed ; that thereafter they filed an appeal before the tribunal, which was dismissed as barred by time. Thus, the order of grant made in favour of the petitioners stood affirmed by the Tribunal ; hence it was not open to the D. C. to exercise jurisdiction undet rule 25 of the Rules. "with reference to the contention of the petitioners that in view of the dismissal of the appeals filed by honneerappa and Thimmaiah s/o Kivuda thimmiah, it is submitted that those appeals were not decided on merits and they were dismissed as barred by time. The writ Petitions were not decided on merits. In addition to this, it is submitted that there are other respondents who have challenged the very grant on the groun
