The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of land must comply with the provisions of the Land Grant Rules and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and any relaxation of the rules must be done in accordance with the prescribed procedures.

( 1 ) THESE writ appeals arise out of the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in A. C. Siddappa v State of Karnataka. The dispute in this case relates to the grant of 10 acres of land in Sy. No. 27 of kowdenahalli Village in favour of the appellant for running a junior college. The respondents in this proceedings other than the State and state Officials had filed the writ petitions espousing the public grievance that the grant made in favour of the appellant is illegal and in flagrant violation of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules. The Sy. No. 27 of Kowdenahalli Village is shown as tankbed area in the revenue records which is not a disputed fact.

( 2 ) THE appellant made a representation to the Revenue Minister for grant of land in the aforesaid Sy. No. 27. Upon such representation, instructions were issued by the Revenue Secretary to the Deputy Commissioner indicating the approval of the Government for the grant of the land under Rule 10 (3) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and the cost of the land was fixed at 50% of the market value of Rs. 1,25,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge, after going through the records and the affidavits filed by the Revenue Secretary, came to an opinion that flagrantly ignoring the claim made by other religious and charitable organisations, the land has been given to the appellant and that there is no formal order of the grant made by the Deputy Commissioner as required under law. The learned Single Judge also finds that in CDP, Sy. No. 27 is shown as a tank. Without the necessary orders from the town planning authority for the change of land use allotment of the land by the deputy Commissioner or by the Government to the appellant for non-agricultural purpose is illegal and that the tankbed has not been dereserved as required under the Land Revenue Act. In view of such infirmities, held that the grant made in favour of the appellant is bad in law and accordingly, set aside the impugned grant.

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the appellants strenuously contended that under Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, the State Government has wide discretionary suo motu powers to relax any of the provisions of the rules for granting the land. In that view, submitted that the grant made at the instance of the Revenue Minister is fully in consonance with the provisions of law and the Counsel further submitted that under Rule 21 lands can be granted to religious and charitable institutions for non-agricultural purpose and accordingly, the appellant being religious and charitable institution, the grant made in its favour cannot be assailed as illegal. For convenient reference the provisions of Rule 27 are extracted hereunder:"27. Powers of the State Government. Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding rules, the State Government may, suo motu, or on the recommendation of the Divisional commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of any case or classes of cases, it is just and reasonable to relax any of the provisions of these rules, it may, by order direct such relaxation, recording the reasons for such relaxation, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the orders and thereupon lands may be granted in such a case or classes of cases in accordance with such direction".

( 5 ) ON the meticulous reading, the discernible essential requisites under Rule 27 are that the State Government suo motu, if in its opinion, is satisfied that in a case or classes of cases the provisions of the rules are to be relaxed, it has to pass an order to that effect directing relaxation by recording the reasons and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order so made, the land may be granted in accordance with such special directions in the order.

( 6 ) IN the instant case, there is no order made by the State Government under Rule 27 for relaxing the provisions. The appellants had submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Min

Click Here to Read the rest of this document