Back
2002 Supreme(Kar) 135
Karnataka High Court
BOREGOWDA - Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT - Respondent
Decided On : 02-15-02
W.P. : 22566 of 2000
N.K.Ramesh, P.N.Nanja Reddy, S.V.Narayana Murthy
The central legal point established is that once land is reserved for a specific purpose, it cannot be granted for other purposes, and timely filing of petitions is crucial.
Headnote:
Land Grant - Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Section 49, Section 71, Section 50, Section 56 - The court discussed the legality and validity of the impugned orders, the reservation of the land for a specific purpose, and the jurisdiction of the authorities to grant the land. The key legal provisions interpreted include Section 49, which addresses locus standi for appeal, and Section 71, which allows for the cancellation of grants. The court also considered the limitations on availing remedies under Section 50 and Section 56.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested the cancellation of a land grant, claiming ownership and peaceful possession. The authorities had set aside the grant and directed the petitioner to hand over possession due to the land being reserved for a specific purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land was reserved for a specific purpose, and the grant made in favor of the petitioner was without jurisdiction. The court also noted an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and dismissed it on the ground of delay and laches.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the land grant, the reservation of the land for a specific purpose, and the delay in filing the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once land is reserved for a specific purpose, it cannot be granted for other purposes. The court also emphasized the importance of timely filing of petitions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THE matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for both the parties.
( 2 ) THE petitioner assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order in R. A. No. 8 of 1987-88, dated 28-3-1990 and order dated 16-7-1991 made in R. A. No. 7 of 1990-91 and further order dated 4-4-1997 made in Revision Petition No. 179 of 1991 passed by the respondents 2 and 1 respectively. Further, sought for a direction directing the respondents to grant any other relief if it is permissible under law.
( 3 ) THE petitioner contended that he is the absolute owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 154 of Baragooru Village, Dandiganahalli Hobli, Channarayapatna taluk, Hassan District, measuring 3 acres 4 guntas. The said land was granted to the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Channarayapatna vide grant order dated 30-6-1982. From the date of grant, till today the petitioner is in peaceful possession and the enjoyment of the land in question. Before the Assistant Commissioner, the 3rd respondent herein has challenged the grant on the ground that the said land was being used by the villagers for grazing purpose. The Assistant Commissioner on 7-8-1984 allowed the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent in R. A. No. 8 of 1983-84 cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioner.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing both sides has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and stood remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner to rehear the matter afresh and pass appropriate order on 10-1-1986 in R. A. No. 67 of 1984-85.
( 5 ) AFTER remand, the Assistant Commissioner has heard the matters in detail after considering the relevant materials on record and passed the order on 28th March, 1990 in R. A. No. 8 of 1987-88 setting aside the grant made in favour of the petitioner by the Tahsildar dated 30-6-1982. Assailing the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in r. A. No. 7 of 1990-91. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the parties and after going through the material records has passed the order dated 16-7-1991 confirming the order passed by the Assistant commissioner and further directed the Tahsildar to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner regarding handing over possession of the suit land on or before 31-8-1991.
( 6 ) THEREAFTER, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy commissioner, the petitioner herein has filed a Revision Petition No. 179 of 1990-91 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing both the sides at length and in view of the law laid down by this Court held that the revision filed by the petitioner is not maintainable by its order dated 4th April, 1997. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal respectively, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition in this Court.
( 7 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are contrary to law and even further he pointed out that as per Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act the 3rd respondent has no locus standi to prefer an appeal. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have granted an order to de-reserve the land and might have been confirmed the order passed by the tahsildar and without considering this aspect of the matter, the respondents have proceeded to cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioner. Further, he pointed out that the land in question was not reserved for any special purpose much less date reserve land as per the entries found in the relevant RTC extracts. Hence, it is not sustainable in the eye of law.
( 8 )
