Point of Law: Section 83 of Act indicates manner in which land is required to be assessed and states that land revenue leviable shall be assessed with reference to use of land for purpose of agriculture.

ORDER :

1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, they are clubbed together and are disposed off by this common order.

2. In these writ petitions, the issue to be decided is whether the lands, which are classified as phot kharab lands, (also referred to as ‘Pot’/ ‘Phut’) are owned by the Hiduvalidararu or by the State.

3. The facts are rather simple.

4. In the year 1995-96, the lands belonging to the petitioners were to be submerged due to the execution of the Upper Krishna Project and were hence notified for acquisition. An award was also passed in respect of the lands determining the compensation, to which the petitioners were entitled. However, while determining the compensation payable, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’ for short) did not award any compensation to that portion of the land, which had been classified as phot kharab.

5. As the claim made by the petitioners remained unconsidered, writ petitions were filed. This Court issued a direction to the SLAO to consider the claim of the petitioners and thereupon the SLAO considered the claims and issued the impugned endorsements.

6. The impugned endorsements state that the petitioners would not be entitled to compensation in respect of the lands classified as phot kharab since they had not been granted the lands which had been classified as ‘A’ kharab lands prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’).

7. Consequently, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the endorsements, contending that they are entitled to the award of compensation in respect of that portion of the lands which have been classified as Phot Kharab lands and there was no need for such lands to be granted to them by the competent authority.

8. It is their fundamental contention that they are the owners of the entire lands and a mere classification of the lands made by the authorities for the purposes of collecting revenue cannot be the criteria for determination of the ownership of the lands and the consequential denial of compensation.

9. The State, on the other hand, contends that since it has not collected the revenue for a portion of land as the land could not be cultivated, in law, it was the land belonging to the State and unless that portion which had been classified as ‘A’ Kharab had been granted by the competent authority before the issuance of the 4(1) Notification, no compensation was liable to be paid.

10. It is also contended that the lands which were reserved for the use of persons of the community either collectively or individually and the owner of the lands was excluded from exercising his right over the said portion by classifying them as ‘B’ kharab lands, as they were Government lands and in respect of these ‘B’ Kharab lands, no compensation was required to be paid.

11. It is essentially contended that the property classified as phot kharab belonged to the State and therefore, compensation was not required to be paid.

12. The principal question, therefore, that will have to be considered is which of the lands vest in the State under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and whether the lands classified as Phot Kharab would also vest in the State, especially those which were classified as ‘B’ Kharab land.

13. The State seeks to rely upon the following decisions rendered to support its stand:

a. R.HANUMAIAH AND ANOTHER Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS, (2010) 5 SCC 203

b. SIDRAMAPPA SHIVAPPA BIRAKABBI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, W.A. Nos.50107 & 50128-154 of 2013

c. SADASHIVAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, ILR 2003 Karnataka 5088

d. L.A KRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND Ors. ILR 2009 KARNATAKA 938

e. YAMANAPPA RAMAPPA GOUDAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, 2014 SCC ONLINE KAR 1271

f. G.R. VIJAYLAKSHMI AND Ors. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND Ors. 2016 (