The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of justifying and following the rules for land grants, the liberal construction of locus standi in cases concerning illegal grant of state largess, and the need to protect public property.

JUDGMENT :

These two intra-court appeals seek to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's common order dated 18.07.2022 whereby W.P.No.49958/2019 C/w W.P.No.49959/2019 filed by the private respondents herein having been favoured, the grant of subject site has been set at naught with a direction for the refund of allotment value to the appellant-Mutt.

2. Learned Sr. Advocate, Sri Vivek Reddy appearing for the appellant-Mutt made the following submissions:-

a) Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 provides for allotment of site by way of an exception to the normative scheme for the grant; this aspect has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge in the right prospective.

b) The writ petitioners namely, the private respondents herein lacked locus standi to call in question the orders of grant and this aspect of the matter has not been properly discussed and decided by the learned Single Judge.

c) The documents on the basis of which the writ petitioners had structured their claim, having been examined are held to be spurious by the Forensic Science Laboratory which conducted the exercise on the orders of the court. That being the position, they ought to have been non-suited on that ground itself.

d) The rulings cited on behalf of the appellant-Mutt ought to have been held to support its case; however, learned Judge wrongly opines to the contrary. This constitutes a legal infirmity to the detriment of the appellant-Mutt.

3. The learned Advocate Sr. Advocate appearing for the private respondents resists the appeal making submission in justification of the reasoning of the impugned order, contending that, order of the learned Single Judge purports to have been made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and such orders are not ordinarily appealable. He also says that even otherwise, the scope of intra court appeal in matters like this is too restrictive and therefore, this court cannot undertake a deeper examination of the matter. He points out that equities in the case have been well balanced by the learned Judge by directing refund of allotment value to the appellant-Mutt. He repels the submission of the appellant. Having so contended, he seeks dismissal of the appeals, which have common questions of law and facts.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matters being broadly in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Following is our discussions:

a) Firstly, these are intra-court appeals and therefore, the scope of examination is very restrictive, even if it is assumed that they are maintainable. What was challenged before the learned Single Judge was the grant/allotment of the subject property in favour of the appellant purportedly under the provisions of Rule 27 of 1969 Rules. Learned Single Judge having examined all aspects of the matters has faltered the grant since the appellant was chosen for a preferential treatment unilaterally and without giving an opportunity to other similarly circumstanced entities; for such a preferential treatment, no reasons are forthcoming. This constituted the first infirmity in the grant orders that were put in challenge in the subject writ petitions, warranting interference of a learned Single Judge in writ jurisdiction.

b) The second contention that Rule 27 of 1969 Rules provides for preferential grant as an exception to the normal procedure, is arguably true. However, such a provision cannot be construed to authorise the Government to make the allotment on its own; secondly, it does not justify an action that favours one single entity when many other similarly circumstanced aspirants could have been in the fray. The said Rule has the following text:

“27. Powers of the State Government :Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding rules, the State Government may, suo motu, or on the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, if it is