Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1838
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.N. Satyanarayana, J.
Sri T.Nagappa, S/o Late Thirukappa – Petitioner
Versus
Sri Abdul Gafoor Sab, S/o Razack Sab and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.29973 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Decided On : 04-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri R.A. Devanand, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri T.S. Mahantesh, AGA
Headnote:
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 - Rule 21(2) and 122(B) - Government Land - Seeking Occupancy Rights - Whether there was infact existence of an extent of 2 acres 38 guntas of land classified as Gunduthopu land – Held, There was any order passed by any authority in re-classifying land of Anugodu Village from Gunduthopu to that of revenue land classified as kharab and particularly, ‘B’ kharab - He would also go to extent of mentioning even assuming that this land is ‘B’ kharab, it is a Government land, which cannot be considered for regularization of unauthorized cultivation - While doing so, he would also observe one more aspect regarding entitlement of petitioner’s father Thirukappa to seek regularization of said land as alleged unauthorized occupant - Admittedly, petitioner’s father, resident of Anugodu Village, had total holding of an extent of 4 acres 34 guntas - Since he was holder of sufficient extent of land, he is disentitled to seek regularization of unauthorized cultivation of 2 acres 30 guntas even if illegal reclassification of said land by Assistant Commissioner in his order is accepted - In this background, when writ petition filed by petitioner is seen, it clearly establishes that he is unable to substantiate that order of fourth respondent Deputy Commissioner is erroneous, firstly, not holding aforesaid land as Gunduthopu land, which is wrongly referred to as ‘B’ kharab and subsequently, in demonstrating that he is entitled to seek regularization of aforesaid extent on ground that family of petitioner did not have sufficient extent of land for cultivation and as such, they were eligible to seek regularization to an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas as rightly discussed by fourth respondent and rejected same giving valid and cogent reasons, which does not call for interference by this Court in this writ petition - Petition rejected.
ORDER :
The petitioner herein is impugning the order of the fourth respondent dated 11th June, 2012 in proceedings No. ULND/CR/135/2003-04.
2. The order impugned is passed after an enquiry being conducted by the fourth respondent pursuant to a direction issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13549 of 2005 (KLR-RES) dated 13th March, 2007. The order impugned is passed in holding that the land bearing Sy.No.123/3 is ‘B’ kharab land as reflected in Akarbandh. Hence, the same is reserved for public purpose under Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. As such, the same cannot be considered for regularization of unauthorized cultivation by any person and any application filed seeking regularization of the same cannot be considered by the Committee constituted by the State for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation of Lands. Therefore, the order dated 04th April, 1998 of the said Committee is illegal and is subjected to challenge in this writ petition.
3. This proceedings has chequered history. The records would indicate that an application in R.A.No.54 of 1996-97 was filed by one Thirukappa who is the father of the petitioner T.Nagappa seeking occupancy rights in respect of 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.123/3 of Anugodu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Davanagere Taluk and Davanagere District. The said application was initially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner of Davanagere SubDivision by order dated 21.09.1998. Wherein it is observed that the said land was Government kharab land, which is wrongly classified as Government Gunduthopu. Therefore, the entry in indicating the said land as Government Gunduthopu should be removed and thereafter, the same should be registered in the name of the applicant Thirukappa, Son of late Dasappa pursuant to Section 122(B) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere would further direct the Tahsildar to register the name of the petitioner’s father as occupant of the said land.
4. The aforesaid order was subjected to challenge by the President of Grama Panchayath of Anugodu Village, Davanagere Taluk in appeal bearing No.R.A.97 of 2000-01 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere where the order of Assistant Commissioner in Proceedings No.R.A.54 of 1996-97 dated 21.09.1998 was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 22.10.2001. It is seen that the said order was subject matter of challenge by the very same person, namely, the President of Anugodu Grama Panchayath in W.P.No.8057 of 2002. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 03.12.2003 with an observation that the contention of the petitioner in the said writ petition regarding land bearing Sy.No.123/3 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas is not available for regularization as the said land is Gunduthopu, will be considered by the Committee constituted for regularization at the time of considering the application filed by the petitioner who is the son of the original applicant Thirukappa.
5. Pursuant to the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 03.12.2003, the Committee constituted for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation confirmed occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.123/3 (which is wrongly referred to as Sy.No.123/2 in ULND.CR.135 of 2003-04 on the file of Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere). However, the said order was subjected to challenge before the Deputy Commissioner in ULND.CR.135 of 2003-04 where the order of the Committee constituted for Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation dated 04.04.1998 was set aside with a direction to the Tahsildar, Davanagere to take possession of the aforesaid land.
6. It is seen that this order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.03.2005 was subject matter of challenge before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13549 of 2005 which was filed by the petitioner herein. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 13.03.2007 and the application of the petitio
