Back
D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.
HOLEYAPPAAND OTHERS Appellant
versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA. AND OTHERS Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14048 of 2005 (KLR-RES).
Decided on 22nd September, 2005
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE RULES, 1966 - Rule 97 - Regularisation of unauthorised cultivation - Rule 97 -Regularisation of unauthorised cultivation -Regularisation sought for is in respect of Gomal land -Lands not dereserved and hence, not available for distribution -Land cannot be regularised as claimed. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: A writ of mandamus is sought for by the person claiming to be in unauthorized cultivation of gomal land, which is primarily meant for the common need of the community for the use of the cattle in the village. Instead, it is sought to be used by humans. Greed of human beings has no limit. After earmarking areas to a specified group unscrupulous people and for their personal gains political parties, political rivals set up their henchmen to grab lands. In the present case, even as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, one group sets up some people and the other group sets up some other people. Applications, rival applications, whether they are bona-fide or not are filed seeking for grant of land in the name of unauthorised cultivation, etc., Such factual background apart, even legally there is no scope for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus at the request of the petitioners. As noticed, the land in question undisputed is a gomal land governed by the provisions of Section 71 of the Act and Rule 97 also operates. It is not even the case of the petitioners that any part of the gomall and has been de-reserved and has become available for distribution by way of regularization of unauthorised cultivation under Chapter 13-A of the Rules and Section 94A of the Act. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondents who are opposing the writ petition that no action has been taken for -de-reserving any part of this land in terms of the provisions of Rule 97 (4) of the Rules. If such factual background and legal position is taken into consideration, there is no occasion for the Court to compel the respondents to consider their applications, though that might have been filed in Form No. 53 in terms of the provisions of Chapter 13-A read with Rule 94-A of the Act, to consider the said applications for regularization as there is no scope in law to regularise. Even assuming that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation or cultivation of such lands, to regularize such unauthorized occupation the land in question has to be taken out of the sweep of the provisions of Section 71 and also Rule 97 and has to be brought within the scope and ambit of Section 94-A governed by the provisions of Chapter 13- A of the Rules.
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 - Section 71 - Regularisation of unauthorised cultivation - Section 71 -Regularisation of unauthorised cultivation -Regularisation sought for is in respect of Gomal land -Lands not dereserved and hence, not available for distribution -Land cannot be regularised as claimed. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: A writ of mandamus is sought for by the person claiming to be in unauthorized cultivation of gomal land, which is primarily meant for the common need of the community for the use of the cattle in the village. Instead, it is sought to be used by humans. Greed of human beings has no limit. After earmarking areas to a specified group unscrupulous people and for their personal gains political parties, political rivals set up their henchmen to grab lands. In the present case, even as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, one group sets up some people and the other group sets up some other people. Applications, rival applications, whether they are bona-fide or not are filed seeking for grant of land in the name of unauthorised cultivation, etc., Such factual background apart, even legally there is no scope for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus at the request of the petitioners. As noticed, the land in question undisputable is a gomal land governed by the provisions of Section 71 of the Act and Rule 97 also operates. It is not even the case of the petitioners that any part of the gomall and has been de-reserved and has become available for distribution by way of regularization of unauthorised cultivation under Chapter 13-A of the Rules and Section 94A of the Act. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondents who are opposing the writ petition that no action has been taken for -de-reserving any part of this land in terms of the provisions of Rule 97 (4) of the Rules. If such factual background and legal position is taken into consideration, there is no occasion for the Court to compel the respondents to consider their applications, though that might have been filed in Form No. 53 in terms of the provisions of Chapter 13-A read with Rule 94-A of the Act, to consider the said applications for regularization as there is no scope in law to regularise. Even assuming that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation or cultivation of such lands, to regularize such unauthorized occupation the land in question has to be taken out of the sweep of the provisions of Section 71 and also Rule 97 and has to be brought within the scope and ambit of Section 94-A governed by the provisions of Chapter 13- A of the Rules.
Writ petition by persons who claim to be in unauthorised possession and cultivation of certain extents of land in Sy. No. 32 of Chikka Sakuna Village, Soraba Taluk, Shimoga District praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to direct them to consider the application of the petitioners for regularisation of their unauthorised possession and cultivation.
2. It is the version of the petitioners that they have been in possession and cultivation of these lands for the past over 20 years; that the petitioners have also filed application in Form 53 praying for regularisation of their unauthorised cultivation; that such applications are pending before the authorities.
3. It is further averred that on the filing of the applications the authorities had taken steps for verifying the claim of the petitioners; that the matter had progressed upto the stage of preparing a sketch by spot inspection of the land by certain lower level officials of the office of the Taluk Surveyor, Soraba Taluk; that the Taluk Surveyor had demarcated the land identifying the land, extent available for distribution etc. At this stage, due to certain political rivalry in the village the applications have not been processed by the Committee set up for regularising the unauthorised occupation and cultivation and under such circumstance appropriate directions be issued to compel the respondents to consider the applications and dispose of the same in terms of the provisions of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 read with Rules 108-B to 108-N comprised in Chapter XIII-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and therefore, a writ of mandamus is necessary to compel the Committee constituted for purpose of regularisation of unauthorised cultivation into action.
4. It is also the version of the petitioners that the Tahsildar, Soraba Taluk had caused issue of notice Annexure-C series dated 21-6-2004 to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners not to carry on any agricultural activities in the lands in question as there was considerable opposition in the village by the villagers that lands meant for grazing of the village cattle earmarked as gomal land was being unauthorisedly used by some persons to the detriment of the entire village; that such activities should be stopped and on such representation the Tahsildar in order to maintain law and order called upon the petitioners to stop the agricultural activities on the lands. It is at this stage petitioners have approached this Court praying for issue of a writ of mandamus. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents granted an interim order directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question for a period of eight weeks, initially in terms of the order dated 28-4-2005. The said interim order was continued from time to time.
5. Respondents have entered appearance and also filed statement of objections and filed an application praying for vacating the interim order and this is how the matter had come up before this Court for consideration of the applications for vacating the interim order dated 28-4-2005, continued from time to time. The matter was heard and at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader, is taken up for final disposal itself instead of passing orders on the interim a stay.
6. In the statement of objections it is averred on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have no locus standi to file a writ petition and the petition itself is not tenable; that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation and cultivation; that the said development of preparing sketch, etc., are way back of the year 1993 and had been done at the lower level, without proper authorisation and directions; that it does not matter one way or the other nor does it create any right in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners personally have no right to seek
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
