Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : K.A.Swami
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD - Appellant
Versus
KANTHA CHANDRA - Respondent
W. P. 21177 Of 1982
Decided On : 04/27/1987
Advocates Appeared :
G.S.VISWESWARA, KALASA SHARMA, M.R.ACHAR, M.S.GOPAL, MRIDUL, V.KRISHNA MURTHY
The Karnataka High Court held that the provisions of Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (the Act) are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the Board has locus standi to maintain the Writ petitions. Further, the Court held that the order of the Tribunal dated 13-8-1981 produced as Annexure-A is invalid in law. Lastly, the Court held that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner granting permission to respondent-1 in each one of these petitions to convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes are invalid in law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB), filed Writ Petitions challenging the provisions of Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (the Act) and the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, granting permission to respondent-1 in each petition to convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes. The BWSSB contended that the provisions of Section 95(5) of the Act are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that it has locus standi to maintain the Writ petitions. The BWSSB also contended that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner are invalid in law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of Section 95(5) of the Act are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the BWSSB has locus standi to maintain the Writ petitions. Further, the Court held that the order of the Tribunal dated 13-8-1981 produced as Annexure-A is invalid in law. Lastly, the Court held that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner granting permission to respondent-1 in each one of these petitions to convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes are invalid in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (the Act) are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Board has locus standi to maintain the Writ petitions? 3. Whether the order of the Tribunal dated 13-8-1981 produced as Annexure-A is valid in law? 4. Whether the orders of the Deputy Commissioner granting permission to respondent-1 in each one of these petitions to convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes are valid in law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of Section 95(5) of the Act are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because it is applicable to all those who seek permission for use of agricultural land for purposes other than agriculture under subsection (2) of Section 95 of the Act. Every such applicant is entitled to take advantage of the provisions contained in Subsection (5) of Section 93 of the Act and proceed on the basis that the permission applied for shall be deemed to have been granted. 2. The Court held that the BWSSB has locus standi to maintain the Writ petitions because it is a public utility organisation and it is under a statutory obligation to ensure wholesome water supply to the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The Court also held that the BWSSB has sufficient interest in the matter so as to have a standing to challenge the impugned orders. 3. The Court held that the order of the Tribunal dated 13-8-1981 produced as Annexure-A is invalid in law because the Tribunal erred in holding that no appeal lies against the permission deemed to have been granted under Subsection (5) of Section 95 of the Act and it is not necessary to entertain an appeal against express order granting permission under Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act inasmuch as such an order cannot be considered to cause an injury to a third person. 4. The Court held that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner granting permission to respondent-1 in each one of these petitions to convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes are invalid in law because the Deputy Commissioner failed to hold an enquiry and without hearing the applicant and the persons who are likely to be affected by the grant of such permission.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the impugned orders of the Tribunal and the Deputy Commissioner.
( 1 ) IN all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner is The bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore- (hereinafter referred to as the 'board' ). Respondent-1 in each one of these petitions is a different person who has obtained permission to convert agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes viz. , for construction of buildings. Respondents 2 to 5 are common to all these petitions. They are : The Special Deputy commissioner, Bangalore. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short the 'tribunal') The State of Karnataka and the D. L. F. Universals Ltd. , New Delh.
( 2 ) THE petitioner has sought for a declaration that the provisions contained in Sub-section (5) of section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 12/1964) (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') are unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In addition to this, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders produced as Annexures-A to Y, in W. P. Nos. 19919 to 19954/ 82. The prayer made in W. P. Nos. 21172 to 21177/1982 is included in the prayer made in W. P. Nos. 19919 to 19954/82 inasmuch as Annexure-A produced in W. P. No. 21172 to 21177/1982 which is sought to be quashed therein is also sought to be quashed in W. P. No. 19919 to 19954/1982.
2. 1. The Board is a Corporate Body constituted under the provisions of the Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 36/1964) (hereinafter referred to as the 'bangalore Water Supply Act') Thippagondanahalli (for short 't. G. Halli') Reservoir is one of the major reservoirs vested in the Board with effect from 1-12-1964. It is one of the main sources of water supply to the Metropolitan City of Bangalore. This Reservoir is fed by Arkavathy river which passes through the lands situated in Gangenahalli, Varthur, Narasimhapura and kurubarahalli villages in Magadi Taluk in Bangalore District. The catchment area of Arkavathy river, among other areas, also comprises of the lands in the aforesaid villages.
2. 2. The 1st respondent in each one of these Writ Petitions has purchased the lands in the aforesaid 4 villages. These lands are situated on the banks of Arkavathy river. After purchasing the lands and after a lapse of some time, each one of them sought permission in the year 1978 and 1979 to convert them for non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Act. In the first instance, there were 36 applications. Thereafter six more applications were filed. All those applications were granted by the 2nd respondent, inasmuch as, in 8 cases, there were express orders passed granting permission; in the remaining cases -- in some of them there were orders passed rejecting the applications and in some no orders were passed -- however in none of the remaining cases, the orders were communicated to the applicants within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the applications. Therefore, in the remaining cases, the permission sought for was deemed to have been granted under Section 95 (5) of the Act in the months of june or July 1979.
2. 3. According to the case of the Board, it came to know of the grant of permission for non-agricultural purposes in respect of vast extent of land lying on the banks of Arkavathy river in the month of September 1979 on the report made by the technical staff of the Board. The specific case of the Board is that by reason of the establishment of a township on the banks of the river Arkavathy close to T. G. Halli reservoir the water will be polluted and it will also be depleted as bore wells are proposed to be drilled in the area over which new township is proposed. Consequently the quality and quantity of water supply to Bangalore City will be adversely affected. The further case of the Board is that it is statutorily bound to supply water not only free from pollution but it is also bound to ensure sufficent supply of water to the residents of Ba
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
