Back
2001 Supreme(Kar) 266
Karnataka High Court
B.UMESH SHENOY - Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHLMOGA DISTRICT - Respondent
Decided On : 04-09-01
W.A. : 7415 of 1999
UDAYA HOLLA, V.BYACHAPPA
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the authorities to strictly adhere to the requirements of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules and the conditions stipulated in the Circular dated 14. 10. 1970, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the ecological balance and preserving community land.
Headnote:
Writ Appeal - Land Grant Rules - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Circular dated 14. 10. 1970 - The court discussed the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, and the Circular dated 14. 10. 1970. It highlighted the conditions for grant of land, the eligibility criteria, and the procedure for grant of land for agricultural purposes. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the ecological balance and preserving community land, and criticized the authorities for subverting the provisions meant to safeguard the interest of the community. The court also laid down guidelines for the authorities to follow in the matter of grant of lands under the Land Grant Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-petitioner applied for grant of 10 acres of land in a village for rubber plantation. The grant was challenged, and the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant made in favor of the appellant was in contravention of all norms, rules, and regulations governing the grant of lands. It criticized the authorities for systematically de-reserving and diverting lands from reserved lands meant for sub-serving the larger community interest. The court emphasized the need for the authorities to strictly adhere to the requirements of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules and the conditions stipulated in the Circular dated 14. 10. 1970.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the grant made in favor of the appellant, the compliance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, and the larger public interest in maintaining the ecological balance and preserving community land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court laid down guidelines for the authorities to follow in the matter of grant of lands under the Land Grant Rules, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the ecological balance and preserving community land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and a cost of Rs. 5,000/- was levied.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High court Act, 1961 against the order dated 30. 7. 1999 passed in w. P. No. 21346/94 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ Petition and confirmed the order dated 23. 3. 1994 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 485/1987,
( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant-petitionerwas an applicant for grant of 10 acres of land in S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village, Thirthahallj Taluk, for the purpose of Rubber plantation. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that such application had been made in the year 1987 and had been made under Rule 16 of the Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short ). The appellant has further pleaded that s. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village measures an extent of approximately 147 acres 11 guntas and the said land is a soppina betta' and is available for grant for needy persons.
( 3 ) IT is also averred that the village in question has surplus gomallands and 'soppina betta' and is available for grant. It is pleaded that the State Government, by its Circular dated 14. 10. 1970, has indicated the mode of releasing the lands reserved as 'soppina betta' in the Malnad area, for the purpose of granting it for cultivation, and had issued directions to the Deputy Commissioners of Districts to de-reserve such excess 'soppina betta' lands by applying the following three conditions namely: "1. That no such land classified as Soppinabetta, shall be released for cultivation purposes, if the extent so reserved does not exceed twice the area of garden or wet lands in the village to which they are assigned; 2. That the release of land classified as Soppinabetta does not result in soil erosion; 3. That the Village Panchayath is consulted before any portion of Soppinabetta land is released for cultivation purposes. " the Government, under this order had delegated such power for de-reservation of 'soppina betta' land for the purpose of granting the same for cultivation in genuine cases and had also struck a note of caution in the very same prder that the Deputy Commissioner exercising the delegated power to take care that the garden land situated in any village does not suffer by the release of 'soppina betta' land. It is obvious that having regard to the object of reserving 'soppina betta' land which is to provide for as a source of manure to the wet lands and garden lands situated in the village, de-reservation and release of 'soppina betta' land should not defeat the very object of creating 'soppina betta' reserve and it is only if such land which is found far in excess of the requirement of the village, it may be de-reserved and released for cultivation.
( 4 ) IT is the case of the appellant that pursuant to such anapplication being filed, the first respondent Deputy Commissioner had processed the said application and after complying with the procedural requirements, by an order dated 13. 2. 1997, released an extent of 10 acres of land from the gomal land, in accordance with the Government Circular No. RD. 26 LGP 70 dated 15. 2. 1970 and the said land had been granted in favour of the appellant-petitioner for rubber cultivation under Rule 7 (2) read with Rule 16 of the karnataka Land Grant Rules ('the Rules for short) at a market price of Rs. 1,000/- per acre subject to Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules.
( 5 ) IT appears, pursuant to the said grant, the Tahsildar, Thirthahallitaluk, issued a 'saguvali chit' in favour of the appellant-petitioner on 7. 4. 1997 and the petitioner was put in possession of the said land. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that subsequent to the grant in his favour, the appellant had taken sleps to develop the land for raising rubber plants and by seeking necessary permission from the rubber Board and financial aid from the Board and other financial institutions.
( 6 ) IT is the further case of the appellant-peti
