Back
Karnataka High Court
A.C.Ananthaswamy - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Decided On : 02-24-06
Writ Petition : 33962 of 2001
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1964 -Leasing of immovable property -Section 32-Leasing of immovable property -Land in question was leased to petitioner grand father -Notification under Section 1(4) published -Possession not taken from petitioner -K.I.A.D.B authorised by Government to lease out the land-As the petitioner was not dispossessed question of transfer of possession does not arise -Possession not taken from petitioner -Held, lease of land by transferring Government s possession, not permissible in laws unless Government takes possessions from the petitioner.
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1964 - Locus standi -Section 32 -Locus standi -Land in question were leased to petitioner s grand father -Petitioner s father settled the lands in favour of the petitioner -Land vested in Government upon enforcement of the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 -Petitioner s father claimed occupancy rights-Petitioner not impleaded by his father in a W.P challenging the order of appellate authority -Does by itself amount to waiver of right in respect of the property and thereby his petition challenging the leasing out of the land is not maintainable for want of locus standi? No. [S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: If a person approaching the Court can satisfy that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his right which is shown to be having source in some statutory provision, the petition filed by such a person cannot be rejected on the ground of his not having the locus standi. In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having locus standi. After coming into force of the Act, the schedule land has been vested in the State Government. In the settlement deed dated 26-12-1974, the settlor namely "C" claims to be the owner of the schedule land. When the schedule land was vested in the State Government on coming into force of the Act, "C" cannot be the owner of the said land. Even otherwise, the other existing right of "C", namely the tenancy right has been abolished subject to his right to claim occupancy right. Therefore, he cannot transfer the title to schedule land in favour of the petitioner. Chikkahanumaiah continued to be the applicant for conferment of occupancy right in respect of the said land till he died on 3-8-1988. "C" had competence to file W.P. No. 5202/77 challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21-4-1977. Further, the State of Karnataka being a party to the said writ petition has not raised any objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the schedule land has been settled in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the 3rd and 4th respondents being transferees of the schedule land are not justified in contending that merely because the petitioner has not got himself impleaded in W.P. No. 5202/1977, he has waived his right in respect of the schedule land and therefore, the present writ petition filled by the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner is not a stranger to the schedule land.
Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 -Prohibition to dispossess land -Section 3(1)(g) -Prohibition to disposes land -Persons in possession of land in respect of which application for grant of occupancy rights prima facie entitled to be registered as occupants or as holders of a minor inam or to be continued as a tenant -Government cannot dispose.
Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 -Section 1(4) -Effect of prohibition of notification under -Land in question was leased to petitioner s grand father -Notification under Section 1(4) published - Possession not taken from petitioner -K.I.A.D.B authorised by Government to lease out the land -As the petitioner was not dispossessed, question of transfer of possession does not arise. [S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: It is no doubt true that on publication of a notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act, title of the schedule land had vested in the State Government. However, the petitioner continued to be in possession of the schedule land. Since the title of the schedule land had vested in the State Government, there cannot be any prohibition for the State Government to transfer the title of the said land in favour of the third parties subject to the right of the petitioner to seek conferment of occupancy right in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, the State Government has not taken possession of the schedule land from the petitioner. Since possession of the schedule land has not been taken by the State Government question of transfer of possession by the State Government in favour of the Board and the Board transferring possession of the schedule land in favour of the 4th respondent by way of lease does not arise.
Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954-Section 3 -Consequences of vesting -Stated. [S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: Section 3 of the Act lays down the consequences of vesting of an inam land in the State. It states that when a Notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act in respect of an inam has been published in the Gazette, then notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force with effect on and from the date of vesting, certain consequences provided in the said section will ensue. Therefore, having regard to the statutory operation, the pre-existing right, title and interest of the Inamdar or any other person having occupation of inam and stood divested and vested in the State Government. However, vesting of the schedule land as above is subject to the right of the petitioner to seek grant of occupancy right provided under the Act. Proviso to Section 3(1)(g) of the Act lays down that the Government shall not dispossesses any persons of any land in respect of which they consider that the applicant for grant of occupancy right is prima facie entitled to be registered as an occupant or as a holder of minor inam or continued to be as a tenant.
Cases Referred: 1990 (4) SCC 668; 1999 (4) SCC 442; (1995) 3 SCC 291; AIR 1973 SC 2720; (2002) 1 SCC 33.
( 2 ) AFTER the passage of about 6 years from the date of the said order, Patengere Group panchayath, Bangalore South Taluk challenged the said order before the Revenue Appellate tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 1806/1971. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the said appeal in part vide order dated 17-7-1977 and set aside the grant of occupancy fights in favour of Patel chikka Hanumaiah. Against this order, Patel Chikka Hanumaiah filed a writ petition before this court in W. P. No. 1814/1971. This Court by the order dated 26-2-1974 allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After remand, the Revenue Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the special Deputy Commissioner granting occupancy rights in favour of Patel Chikka Hanumaiah by its order dated 21-4-1977. Aggrieved by the said order, Patel Chikka Hanumaiah filed a Writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 5202/1977 and this Court allowed the writ petition on 8-1- 1980 and remitted the matter back to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore for fresh disposal in accordance with law and that the matter is still pending before the Special Deputy commissioner.
( 3 ) IT is further contended that by A deed of settlement dated 26-12-1974 Chikka Hanumaiah settled the schedule land in favour the petitioner. Chikka Hanumaiah passed away on 3-8-1988. Thus, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. When the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 27-5-1992 for eviction of the petitioner from the schedule land on the ground that he is an unauthorised cultivator of the schedule land. A reply was filed by the petitioner to the said notice. Without considering the said reply and without giving opportunity of being heard, an order was passed on 24-7-1992 directing the petitioner to vacate the schedule land. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 28730/1993. This Court by the order dated 13-1-1999 quashed the said order of the 2nd respondent. Subsequent to the disposal of w. P. No. 28730/1998, the possession of the petitioner in respect of the schedule land property was not disturbed by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that the Petitioner has constructed a farm house, cattle shed and quarters for the labourers by investing huge sums of money on the schedule land. There are fruit yielding coconut trees and grown up silver oak, teak wood, rose wood and other trees and that he has been cultivating the schedule land regularly and growing ragi, pulses and other food grains. Petitioner contends that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. The State Government is not justified in according approval to lease the schedule land to the 3rd respondent as
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
