2020 Supreme(Kar) 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, M.I. ARUN, JJ.
The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue by its Principal Secretary – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Anand Investment Private Limited – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 582 of 2018
Decided On : 14-02-2020

Headnote:

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964 - Sections 79-A and 79-B - Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 391 to 394 - Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 - Rule 27-A - Possession of lands – Condo nation of delay - Whether it is an export oriented project etc. Nothing is mentioned in order - Case of petitioner is that in spite of said Government order lands were not allotted to it – Hence instant writ petitions were filed seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to allot and transfer forthwith acres of land of Village to petitioner pursuant to Government Order and for a writ of certiorari to quash letter of respondent No. 2 namely KIADB – Thereafter KIADB in terms of letter intimated erstwhile petitioner company that a detailed proposal has been sent to Government for allotment of lands to petitioner since it is Government which is appropriate authority to allot lands by a Government order - By an another communication it was resolved to give an approval to send suitable proposals to Department of Revenue to allot lands to erstwhile petitioner company - Learned Single Judge considered scheme of amalgamation of companies and its related issues - Learned Single Judge came to conclusion that petitioner is entitled to take possession of lands in question – Held, If contentions of petitioners were to be accepted then there must be reference in Government Order relatable to contentions being advanced - There has to be a reference as to how acts of petitioner company amounts to public purpose - Nature of employment nature of foreign exchange etc., are not forthcoming in Government Order – Firstly is fact that Section 77 of Act deals with disposal of surplus lands - Rule-27A of Rules deals with disposal of lands under Sub-Section (3) of Section 77 of Act - It is narrated that lands could be reserved by State for any public purpose under Section 77(3) - That said lands may be used by State or may be granted for any public purpose as narrated therein namely clause (i) to clause (vii) - Petitioner company is a registered company under Companies Act - It does not come under any one of categories as stipulated under Rule-27 (A) of Rules - Therefore it is a clear case of an illegal order being passed by Government - Therefore court find that order is unsustainable since no public purpose is involved - It is pleased that land has been given for a public purpose - Court have considered material on record - A reading of Government Order does not indicate any public purpose - It only narrates broad principles being followed by Government of India and Government of Karnataka - It indicates with regard to unemployment and overseas transactions - Government Order would necessarily have to indicate that land is being reserved for a public purpose for a particular cause which in turn would help public - There is no reference in Government Order as to what Company is going to manufacture and how public interest is involved – Therefore there is absence of requirements as enunciated in Section 77 (3) of Act - Court are of view that grant of land itself is illegal - Proceedings for forfeiture has not been questioned by writ petitioner - They have attained finality - In view of fact that petitioner is a person who has violated provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act in court considered view State could not have ventured to give very same lands to them - Act of issuing Government Order is a fraud on statute - When statute prohibits a person from holding lands or acquire lands State cannot hide behind another provision of law and allot those very same lands to a violator of law - Grant of surplus lands by State is always to be done in public interest and in terms of provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and its Rules - Lands cannot be granted at whims and fancies of State Government - There are various Regulations as provided under Act as referable under Section 77 and Rules 27 (A), (B) etc. which should act as a guiding force in disposal of surplus lands - Direction to KIADB to grant land to writ petitioner by invoking provisions of Section 77 (3) of Act is a fraud on power of State - So far as review petition is concerned subsequent order passed by State was brought to notice of learned Single Judge - Learned Single Judge was of view that this is a subsequent event and therefore does not constitute a ground for review namely that there is an absence of an error apparent on face of record - On considering order passed in review petition prima facie on application of strict principles there may not be any error apparent - That as on date learned Single Judge passed order in writ petition Government order did not exist - However as law is well settled if a subsequent event is brought to notice of learned Single Judge either in a review petition or otherwise court is duty bound to consider subsequent event and to mould relief - Adopting a hyper technical view in court considered view does not aid cause of justice - Ultimately justice has to be rendered by a court of law - Having been made aware of order being withdrawn necessary orders had to be passed by learned single judge - In court considered view failure to do so has led to gross miscarriage of justice - Therefore appropriate interference is called for – Petition allowed