Possession alone does not establish title; valid legal ownership and adherence to statutory procedures are requisite for land grants.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the grant order dated 24.01.2013 passed in RD 82 LGS 2012 by respondent No.1 - vide Annexure-AA, whereby respondent No.1 exercising powers under Rule 19 (1) and (3) of the KARNATAKA LAND GRANT RULES , 1969 (for brevity "the Rules") granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.123 situated at Somanikoppa village (for brevity, "the subject land") on lease basis for a period of 30 years on the memorandum of request dated 10.04.2012 submitted by respondent No.5 - Sri Kanakadasa Seva Trust by remitting the lease amount of Rs.1,10,000/- on 19.02.2013 towards the lease.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their father late Khaji Abdul Azeez purchased the land adjacent to subject land i.e., 2 acres 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.123 (new Sy. No.137) situated at Somanikoppa village from one Savithramma vide registered Sale Deed dated 23.09.1971 and while purchasing the said land, said Savithramma handed over possession of subject land i.e., 2 acres on the eastern side, since then they were in possession and cultivation of total 4 acres 36 guntas of land. The petitioners invested huge amount and grown the coconut plants in the subject land. After demise of petitioners' father, the name of the petitioners mother Shahajadbhi was entered in the revenue records in respect of 2 acres 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.123 and upon introduction of Section 94-A of the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT , 1991, the petitioners made an application to regularize the unauthorized cultivation of the subject land, which was, however, dismissed and subsequent to that they made an application under Form-53, which is pending for consideration.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the year 1992, the Shivamogga Urban Development Authority made an effort to acquire the subject land which was objected to by the mother of petitioners. Thereafter, the proceedings for acquisition of subject land were dropped. Since 1974-75 to 1978-79 the petitioners' father name was mentioned in column No.12 of RTC and later on, it was omitted by the concerned authorities even though the petitioners were in continuous possession and cultivation of the subject land.

4. Things stood thus, respondent No.5 submitted a memorandum of request dated 10.04.2012 to respondent No.1 to allot subject land to respondent No.5 for the purpose of developing their educational trust to the backward class students. After considering the application and the information given by the Revenue Department and Deputy Commissioner, the government recommended for allotment of subject land to respondent No.5 on 30 years lease basis and accordingly granted the land vide order dated 24.01.2013 passed in RD 82 LGS 2012. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Heard Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Vinod Kumar., learned counsel for respondent No.5.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the father of petitioners late Khaji Abdul Azeez purchased 2 acres 36 guntas of land from one Savithramma and while purchasing the same, his vendor Savithramma handed over possession of subject land and since then, they were in possession and cultivation of total 4 acres 36 guntas of land and after huge investment they have grown coconut trees. They filed O.S.No.868/2012 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of subject land against respondent Nos.1 to 4 and subsequently, respondent No.5 got impleaded. In the said suit, the Trial Court observed that the petitio