1992 Supreme(Kar) 157

Karnataka High Court
A.Lakshmisagar - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 04-24-92
W.P. : 2285 of 1992

The Government cannot nullify the orders of the Court and such action amounts to contempt of Court. The Government has no power to grant permission for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use as that power is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under S. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Government cannot arrogate to itself a power which is not given to it under the law. The Government must comply with the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, while granting permission for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use. Failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act renders the impugned order illegal.

Headnote:

The Karnataka High Court quashed the impugned order of the State Government that nullified the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District under S. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, granting permission for conversion of 414 acres of agricultural land for non-agricultural use, for establishing a housing colony on the banks of Arkavati River near Tippagondanahalli Water Reservoir, one of the sources of supply of drinking water to the City of Bangalore. The Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and high-handed as it directed that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, which were quashed by the Court, shall continue. The Court also held that the Government had no power to grant permission for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use as that power was conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under S. 95 of the Act. Further, the Court held that the impugned order, in truth and substance, permitted the establishment of a new village and as the mandatory procedure prescribed under S. 6 of the Land Revenue Act was not followed, it was liable to be set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The State Government had nullified the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District under S. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, granting permission for conversion of 414 acres of agricultural land for non-agricultural use, for establishing a housing colony on the banks of Arkavati River near Tippagondanahalli Water Reservoir, one of the sources of supply of drinking water to the City of Bangalore. The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) had challenged the orders of the Deputy Commissioner granting permission for conversion of the lands, contending that it would result in pollution of the river and depletion of water in the reservoir. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the BWSSB holding that it had no locus standi to prefer the appeals. The BWSSB had then filed Writ Petitions before the Karnataka High Court, which quashed the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal. The State Government, in the impugned order, had directed that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner shall continue.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and high-handed as it directed that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, which were quashed by the Court, shall continue. The Court also held that the Government had no power to grant permission for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use as that power was conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under S. 95 of the Act. Further, the Court held that the impugned order, in truth and substance, permitted the establishment of a new village and as the mandatory procedure prescribed under S. 6 of the Land Revenue Act was not followed, it was liable to be set aside.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order of the State Government was arbitrary and high-handed? 2. Whether the Government had the power to grant permission for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use? 3. Whether the impugned order, in truth and substance, permitted the establishment of a new village and whether the mandatory procedure prescribed under S. 6 of the Land Revenue Act was followed?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary and high-handed as it directed that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, which were quashed by the Court, shall continue. The Court observed that the Government had no power to nullify the orders of the Court and that such action amounted to contempt of Court. 2. The Court held that the Government had no power to grant permission for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use as that power was conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under S. 95 of the Act. The Court observed that the Government could not arrogate to itself a power which was not given to it under the law. 3. The Court held that the impugned order, in truth and substance, permitted the establishment of a new village and as the mandatory procedure prescribed under S. 6 of the Land Revenue Act was not followed, it was liable to be set aside. The Court observed that the Government had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act and that such failure rendered the impugned order illegal.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the impugned order of the State Government. The Court also imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the petitions payable to the petitioners by the State Government and the DLF Universal Ltd. in equal proportion.