Back
2001 Supreme(Kar) 272
Karnataka High Court
Judges : ASHOK BHAN,D.V SHYLENDRA KUMAR
B.UMESH SHENOY - Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHLMOGA DISTRICT - Respondent
W. A. 7415 Of 1999
Decided On : 04/09/2001
The grant of land should strictly adhere to the requirements of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules and the conditions stipulated in the Government Circular dated 14. 10. 1970. Equity cannot validate an illegal grant.
Headnote:
Writ Appeal - Land Grant Rules - Section 4 of the Karnataka High court Act, 1961 - Rule 16 of the Land Grant Rules, 1969 - Circular dated 14. 10. 1970 - Soppina Betta land - Grant for Rubber plantation - Conditions for release of Soppina Betta land - Compliance with statutory provisions - Abuse of power for land grants - Public interest vs. private interest - Illegal grant - Delay in filing appeal - Condonation of delay - Equity cannot validate an illegal grant - Guidelines for land grants - Dismissal of Writ Petition - Final Decision with cost
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-petitioner applied for grant of 10 acres of land in S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village for rubber plantation. The grant was made, but subsequently set aside by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The appellant appealed, arguing that the grant was in compliance with the Land Revenue Act and Land Grant Rules, and that subsequent developments should have prevented the grant from being set aside. The court found that the grant was made in contravention of statutory provisions and dismissed the appeal, levying a cost of Rs. 5,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant was made in contravention of all norms, Rules, and regulations governing the grant of lands and also in the teeth of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of the Court in a previous case. The court dismissed the appeal and levied a cost of Rs. 5,000.
Issues: Compliance with statutory provisions for land grants, abuse of power for land grants, public interest vs. private interest, delay in filing appeal, equity in validating an illegal grant
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant was made in contravention of statutory provisions and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for authorities to strictly adhere to the requirements of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules and the manner in which the conditions stipulated in the Government Circular dated 14. 10. 1970 should be complied with.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and a cost of Rs. 5,000 was levied.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High court Act, 1961 against the order dated 30. 7. 1999 passed in w. P. No. 21346/94 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ Petition and confirmed the order dated 23. 3. 1994 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 485/1987,
( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant-petitionerwas an applicant for grant of 10 acres of land in S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village, Thirthahallj Taluk, for the purpose of Rubber plantation. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that such application had been made in the year 1987 and had been made under Rule 16 of the Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short ). The appellant has further pleaded that s. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village measures an extent of approximately 147 acres 11 guntas and the said land is a soppina betta' and is available for grant for needy persons.
( 3 ) IT is also averred that the village in question has surplus gomallands and 'soppina betta' and is available for grant. It is pleaded that the State Government, by its Circular dated 14. 10. 1970, has indicated the mode of releasing the lands reserved as 'soppina betta' in the Malnad area, for the purpose of granting it for cultivation, and had issued directions to the Deputy Commissioners of Districts to de-reserve such excess 'soppina betta' lands by applying the following three conditions namely: "1. That no such land classified as Soppinabetta, shall be released for cultivation purposes, if the extent so reserved does not exceed twice the area of garden or wet lands in the village to which they are assigned; 2. That the release of land classified as Soppinabetta does not result in soil erosion; 3. That the Village Panchayath is consulted before any portion of Soppinabetta land is released for cultivation purposes. " the Government, under this order had delegated such power for de-reservation of 'soppina betta' land for the purpose of granting the same for cultivation in genuine cases and had also struck a note of caution in the very same prder that the Deputy Commissioner exercising the delegated power to take care that the garden land situated in any village does not suffer by the release of 'soppina betta' land. It is obvious that having regard to the object of reserving 'soppina betta' land which is to provide for as a source of manure to the wet lands and garden lands situated in the village, de-reservation and release of 'soppina betta' land should not defeat the very object of creating 'soppina betta' reserve and it is only if such land which is found far in excess of the requirement of the village, it may be de-reserved and released for cultivation.
( 4 ) IT is the case of the appellant that pursuant to such anapplication being filed, the first respondent Deputy Commissioner had processed the said application and after complying with the procedural requirements, by an order dated 13. 2. 1997, released an extent of 10 acres of land from the gomal land, in accordance with the Government Circular No. RD. 26 LGP 70 dated 15. 2. 1970 and the said land had been granted in favour of the appellant-petitioner for rubber cultivation under Rule 7 (2) read with Rule 16 of the karnataka Land Grant Rules ('the Rules for short) at a market price of Rs. 1,000/- per acre subject to Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules.
( 5 ) IT appears, pursuant to the said grant, the Tahsildar, Thirthahallitaluk, issued a 'saguvali chit' in favour of the appellant-petitioner on 7. 4. 1997 and the petitioner was put in possession of the said land. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that subsequent to the grant in his favour, the appellant had taken sleps to develop the land for raising rubber plants and by seeking necessary permission from the rubber Board and financial aid from the Board and other financial institutions.
( 6 ) IT is the further case of the appellan
