Back
Karnataka High Court
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Appellant
Versus
HOLEYAPPA - Respondent
Decided On : 11-18-06
Writ Appeal No. 1353 of 2006 (KLR-Res.) connected with Writ Appeal No. 3813 of 2005 (KLR-Res.) and Writ Petition No. 21221 of 2005 (KLR-LG).
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 3789; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 2000 SC 3751; ILR 2005 Kar 5437 (Reversed).
Land - Land Revenue - Law of - Gomal land - If can be regularized.
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 3789; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 2000 SC 3751; ILR 2005 Kar 5437 (Reversed).
Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 71 - Regularisation of land set apart for free pasturage - Bar under Rule 108-I - Not applicable - It applies to grant of land - Hence, regularisation is permissible. [V. Gopala Gowda and C. R. Kumara Swamy, JJ.]: The lands assigned for special purposes under Section 71 of the Act shall not be granted. Very strangely, the proviso states that "the provisions of this rule shall not apply to lands set-apart for free pasturage under Section 71 of the Act. Both are conflict with each other However, the bar created under the Rule pertains to "grant" of land it will not apply to land and it will not apply to regularisation of unauthorized occupation of the land.
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 94-A - Gomal Land - Regularisation of - Permissibility. [V. Gopala Gowda and C. R. Kumara Swamy, JJ.]: There is nothing wrong in diverting either a gomal land or any other reserved land for other purposes when there is no sufficient cattle population in that area when there is no requirement of land for free pasturage and the purpose for which the reservation does not exist. As in the past, farmers are not depending upon Government land for feeding their cattle. They are using their own lands or making their own arrangements to feed their cattle. On account of the Government Policy in enacting the provisions of Sections. 94-A, 94-B and 94-C of the KLRAct, increase of population in the State, lack of even distribution of land and other avocation for the residents of villages people out of dire need and necessity for their survival have occupied the reserved lands and have been cultivating to eke out livelihood for them and their family members. The occupation of lands by unauthorised occupants has become inevitable which reality and factual situation has been taken note by the Government, therefore the statutory rights given to the unauthorised occupants cannot be deprived of. They have acquired fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e), and (g) of the Constitution. The regularisation of unauthorised occupation of Government lands relates to their livelihood which is again guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 3789; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 2000 SC 3751; ILR 2005 Kar 5437 (Reversed).
Constitution of India - Article 19 (1)(e) & (g) - Fundamental right under - Regularisation of unauthorised occupation of gomal land - Refusal amounts to infringement of.
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 3789; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 2000 SC 3751; ILR 2005 Kar 5437 (Reversed).
Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to livelihood - Regularisation of unauthorised occupation of gomal land - Refusal amounts to infringement of.
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 3789; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 2000 SC 3751; ILR 2005 Kar 5437 (Reversed).
Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to livelihood - Scope and ambit of. Dilatory Settled Principles: For purposes of argument, we will assume the factual correctness of the premise that if the petitioners are evicted from their dwellings, they will be deprived of their livelihood. Upon that assumption, the question which we have to consider is whether the right of life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one answer to the question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by ART.21 is wide and far-reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaning fullness but it would made life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what make life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life. Indeed, that explains the massive migration of the rural population to big cities. They migrate because they have no means of livelihood in the villages. The motive force which propels their desertion of their hearths and homes in the village is the struggle for survival, that is, the struggle for life. So unimeachable is the evidence of the nexus between life and the means of livelihood. They have to eat to live: Only a handful can afford the luxury of living to eat. That they can do, namely, eat, only if they have the means of livelihood. That is the context in which it was said by Douglas J. in Baksey, (1954) 347 M.D. 442 that the right to work is the most precious liberty that man possesses. It is the most precious liberty because, it sustains and enables a man to live and the right to life is a precious freedom. "Life ", as observed by Field, J in Munn v. Illinois. (1877) 94 US 113. means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. This observation was quoted with approval by this Court in Kharak Singh Vs. State of UP., (1964) 1 SCR 332: (AIR 1963 SC 1295) [AIR 1986 SC 180].
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 3789; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 2000 SC 3751; ILR 2005 Kar 5437 (Reversed).
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Jurisdiction of court - Scope of. Dilatory Settled Principles: The Court, no doubt has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people So fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means over run in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after it So execution has commenced should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of laches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the Court at that time. Just because a petition is termed as a PIL does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Laches is one of them [AIR 2000 SC 3751].
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 3789; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 2000 SC 3751; ILR 2005 Kar 5437 (Reversed).
Funamental Rights - Land grant - Gomal land - Whether refusal to regularize unauthorised occupation amounts to deprivation of livelihood.
Cases Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 3789; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 2000 SC 3751; ILR 2005 Kar 5437 (Reversed).
Funamental Rights - Right of Livelihood - Scope of - Adumbrated.
Referred: ILR 2003 Kar 3789; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 2000 SC 3751; ILR 2005 Kar 5437 (Reversed).
COMMON JUDGMENT/ORDER
The appellants in W.A. No. 3813 of 2005 and petitioner in W.P. No. 21221 of 2005 claim that they are unauthorisedly cultivating land in Sy. No. 32 of Chikkashakuna Village, Soraba Taluk in Shimoga District. They filed applications in Form 50 under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, read with Rule 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as 'KLR Act' and 'Rules' in short), seeking regularisation of their unauthorised occupation of the land, but the Tahsildar issued Notices dated 21-6-2004 calling upon them not to cultivate the land until their applications for regularisation are disposed of. Being aggrieved by the same, they have filed the writ petitions seeking to quash the notices and for a writ of mandamus to the authorities to regularise their unauthorised cultivation of the land in question. The writ petition of appellants in W.A. No. 3813 of 2005 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 22-9-2005. The learned Single Judge held that direction cannot be issued to the authorities to regularise the unauthorised cultivation of gomal land and the authorities were directed to retain the gomal land. The learned Single Judge also directed the Registrar General of this Court to forward a copy of the order to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State, the Secretary to Revenue Department and the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka with a direction to ensure follow-up action pursuant to the notices issued. Being aggrieved by the same, the State, the Land Grant Committee and the Tahsildar filed W.A. No. 1353 of 2006 while the unauthorised occupants filed W.A. No. 3813 of 2005 questioning the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge. Since W.P. No. 21221 of 2005 was not disposed of the same is clubbed along with the two writ appeals.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge extracted the relevant provisions of KLR Act and Rules and declined to grant the reliefs to the writ petitioners.
3. The main grievance of the unauthorised occupants is that the statutory right guaranteed to them to seek regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of the Government land is deprived of thereby the provisions empowering regularisation of unauthorised occupation have been made redundant or otiose. The learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. P.G.C. Chengappa has submitted that by virtue of the impugned order and the directions issued, the object and purpose of certain provisions of the Act and the Rules have been made nugatory. In the light of these grievances, we now proceed to examine the correctness of the order under challenge in the writ appeals and legality of the impugned notices in the writ petition.
4. It is no doubt true that certain lands are reserved under Section 71 of the KLR Act for pasturage for village cattle, for forest reserves or any other public purpose. The lands reserved for cattle pasturage are called "gomal lands". The land involved in these cases if a gomal land. As per Rule 97 of the Rules, the reservation of gomal land shall be 12 hectares for every 100 cattle, which shall include cow, buffaloes, goats, sheep and calves. This is clear from the explanation to the said Rule. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 97, the Deputy Commissioner can either increase or decrease the extent of reservation for this purpose.
5. Under Section 69 of the Act, the lands belonging to the Government can be disposed of for the purposes of agriculture, industry or any public utility. Section 94-A of the Act empowers the Committees constituted thereunder to regularise the authorised occupation of lands. Section 94-B of the KLR Act commences with non obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" and states that if the Deputy Commissioner or other officer authorised by the State Government is satisfied, can make recommendations to the Committee
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
