Back
Karnataka High Court
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Appellant
Versus
B.R.KRISHNAIAH - Respondent
Decided On : 03-28-03
W.A. : 4774 of 2002
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT (TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS) RULES, 1977
Land grant -Rules of business not observed -held, rules of business are only directory, and does not furnish a cause of action.
[N. K. Jain CJ. & V. G. Sabhahit, J.] -It is well settled that Rules of Business are merely directory and any breach does not furnish a cause of action for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and that too at the instance of persons who have not been able to show any subsisting right in challenging the grant. The records produced by the petitioners show that none of them are original documents, and only certified copies of documents are produced, the veracity and credibility of which is in dispute. Under the circumstances, no purpose will be served either in remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge or even in deciding the issue in this appeal merely on the basis of so called certified copies of the documents and in absence of original, records available in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, as the Court is only to protect the existing right and not to establish. One has to file a suit in the competent court and writ jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction.
Case Referred: (2000) 8 SCC 262.
Land Grant
KARNATAKA LAND GRANT RULES, 1969
Rules 7(3)(i) & 21 - Land grant - procedure for - powers of the Govt. - Govt. can relax rules (i.e., Rule 7(3)(i)) - quoting wrong provision - held, will not invalidate the order.
[N. K. Jain CJ, & V. G. Sabhahit, J.] -Rule 27 of the Land Grant Rules empowers the Government to relax any of the provisions of the rules and said rule begins with a non- obstante clause.
Case Referred: (2000) 8 SCC 262.
( 1 ) THESE writ appeals arise out of common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7-3-2002 in W. P. Nos. 21666 and 21795 to 21798 of 2001 and 23661 of 2001 filed by the State and the grantee (educational institution ).
( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case in brief leading upto these appeals are as follows. The President, New Horizon Educational Institution trust (hereinafter called 'educational institution') (appellant in W. A. Nos. 4774 to 4779 of 2002) made a representation to the Chief Minister of Karnataka Government requesting for grant of 7 acres of land in Sy. No. 14 of Kadubisanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South taluk. The Government by communication dated 28-4-2001 granted prior approval for sanction of land for establishing Engineering College, sports Complex, Auditorium and for other educational purposes. On that basis the Deputy Commissioner invoking Rule 97 (4) of Karnataka land Reforms Rules (hereinafter called the 'rules') sanctioned 3 acres 12 guntas of land in Sy. No. 14 of the said village subject to the conditions mentioned in official memorandum dated 28-5-2001.
( 3 ) AGAINST the grant to the educational institution, Writ Petition Nos, 21866 and 21795 to 21798 of 2001 were filed alleging that the petitioners are landless scheduled caste persons in unauthorised occupation cultivating different extents of land measuring from about 20 guntas to one acre. Therefore, without considering their pending application for regularisation and as no gomai land can be granted, the grant is liable to be quashed.
( 4 ) THE sons of late Annaiah alias Muniverappa also filed W. P. No. 23661 of 2001. It is stated that their father Annaiah was granted 3 acres of land in the said Sy. No. 14 on 24-11-1961 and they are in possession. Therefore, the grant to this educational institution is bad, void and liable to be quashed.
( 5 ) THE petition was resisted by respondents 1 to 3 by denying the averments made in the Writ Petition Nos. 21795 to 21798 of 2001. It is stated that writ was not maintainable as the property was within a distance of 18 kms. from Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and as such the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules are not attracted. It is also stated that in absence of any vested right the petitioner cannot challenge the order of grant made with some conditions to the 4th respondent -institution and it has been passed following the procedure. Counter has been filed in W. P. No, 23661 of 2001 denying the allegations. It is stated that the grant has been made after following the procedure in accordance with the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the rules.
( 6 ) THE fourth respondent-institution also stated that the petitioners have no right to challenge the sanction made in favour of the institution, as the unauthorised occupants have no vested right. It is also stated that their application is not maintainable. The fact of allotment of the said land to their father has been denied by filing counter in W. P. No. 21666 of 2001. Therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the order is passed without following the procedure contemplated under section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act read with the relevant rules. It was also held that the grant is also vitiated on the ground of legal mala fides. Therefore, he allowed the writ petition by quashing the grant dated 7-3-2002.
( 8 ) BEING aggrieved, the fourth respondent-educational institution in w. P. No. 21666 of 2001 as well as the State have preferred writ appeals as stated.
( 9 ) WE have heard Sri Seshadri, learned Government Advocate ap- pearing for the appellant in W. A. Nos. 4690 to 4695 of 2002 and Sri K. K. Mani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in W. A. Nos. 4774 to 4779 of 2002 and Sri K. Prakash Hegde, Sri G. S. Visweswara with B. C. Rajeeva, learned Counsels appearing for the respondents.
( 10 ) THE learned Govern
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
