Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, J.
M/S. Neria Estates Rural Industries Association Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1859 Of 2008(Lr)
Decided On : 29-05-2017
Further, (a) When the Court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain set of facts, it would adhere to that principle and would apply to all future Courts where the facts are substantially the same. The petitioner has not been able t make out a case for reconsideration of the earlier judgments of the High Court, on the very same issues pertaining to the very same petitioner. Even otherwise, the Division Bench has considered the pleas and has rejected it, by affirming the view of the Learned Single Judge. Moreover, the plea of the petitioner for reconsideration of the same by filing a review petition has also been rejected. Hence, no good ground is made out to re-consider the earlier issues decided against the petitioner in the aforesaid cases.
(b) The judicial discipline demands that the decision of the Division Bench should be followed, not only by the Learned Single Judge, but also by the Division Bench. The order of the Division Bench would have to be understood for what was intended. The reference made by the Division Bench is to direct the State to take possession of the land as expeditiously as possible, by initiating proceedings in a manner known to law. The manner known to law has been followed by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the impugned order. It is the proceedings for eviction alone that the State was directed to complete. It is not the question of initiating new proceedings against the petitioners.
(c) The Deputy Commissioner having considered the previous orders of the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the lands require to be taken over by the State. Reference was made to the earlier orders of the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any error committed by the Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner has extensively considered the contentions of the petitioners, on the question of vesting of the lands, the lands being plantation etc and held that the same cannot be reagitated once again before the authorities. Even so far as the procedure in handing over possession is concerned, the same is in accordance with law. Substantial opportunities have been granted. The procedure as envisaged under the Act has been followed. The Court finds no infraction of the Act with regard to the manner in which possession has been ordered by the impugned order. Under the circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Writ Petition is Dismissed.
The first petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956. The second petitioner is its Managing Director. The case of the petitioner is that on a mistaken understanding of the scope of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), the first petitioner filed an application in Form No.7, claiming occupancy rights in respect of the schedule lands. The Land Tribunal on enquiry came to the conclusion that the first petitioner company was not entitled for grant of occupancy rights, since it is a private limited company and cannot be considered as a tenant. Therefore, Form No.7 was rejected in terms of the order dated 25.05.1984.
2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14885 of 1984. By the order dated 09.04.1988, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same W.A.No.1030 of 1988 and W.P.No.1867 of 1989 was filed by the company and the landowners, respectively. By the order dated 21.09.1990, the writ appeals were dismissed. A review petition was filed in C.P.No.13 of 1991 and 386 of 1991, which came to be dismissed on 03.01.1992. Thereafter, S.L.P. (Civil) No.120 of 1991 was filed. By the order dated 26.07.1996, the same was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Thereafter, the Tahsildar by an order dated 20.07.2000, added the name of the State in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners filed a Writ Petition No.26764 of 2000. The writ petition was dismissed vide order 06.12.2005. However, liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court.
4. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Appeal No.124 of 2006 was filed, wherein by the order dated 06.09.2006, the appeal was disposed off granting liberty to the State to initiate such proceedings to take possession of the lands as expeditiously as possible.
5. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 21.08.2007, directed the State to take possession of the lands in question. The same was challenged in W.P.No.14523 of 2007, wherein by the order dated 18.09.2007, the writ petition was disposed off by directing that the impugned order dated 21.08.2007, be considered as a show-cause notice and directing the writ petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner and to file their statement of objections and that the entire process to be concluded by the Deputy Commissioner within an outer limit of six months.
6. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Appeal No.2005 of 2007 was filed. By the order dated 12.11.2007, the writ appeal was dismissed, however, extending the time to file the objections before the Deputy Commissioner. Objections were filed before the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to take possession of the schedule lands therein and handover the same to the Forest Department. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed.
7.(a) Shri. K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is erroneous. That the Deputy Commissioner committed an error in directing the Tahsildar to take possession of the lands in question. His primary contention is that there is no vesting of lands in favour of the State. That the vesting of the lands has to take place in accordance with Section – 79-B-(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), which has not been done. Therefore, until and unless the proceedings are in accordance with law, the State has no authority to take away these lands.
(b). The second contention is that the lands in question are plantation lands. Therefore, the said lands are excluded from the provisions of the Act. That plantation lands cannot be considered as agricultural lands. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable.
(c). He further contends that the findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation by the learned Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench cannot be binding on the petitioners. They are
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
