1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION No.6705/2017 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.PADMANABHA SHETTY
S/O LATE UGGAPPA SHETTY
AGED 57 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/AT KODIAL HOUSE
KUDAMBETTU VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574 219
& PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADV.)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPT. OF REVENUE
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.K.DISTRICT
MANGALORE-575 001
3 . THE ADDL. LAND GRANT COMMITTEE
BANTWAL,
REP BY THE TAHASILDAR
574 211
2
4 . SRI.VITTAL SHETTY
S/O LATE UGGAPPA SHETTY
AGE: 74 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KODIAL HOUSE
KUDAMBETTUR VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574 211
& RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CC.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
R4 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DTD: 30.11.2016 IN APPEAL NO.764/2009
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
1.
The petitioner made an application seeking for
grant of land under Section 94-B of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 8the Act9). In other words,
he claimed that he was in unauthorised occupation of
this land prior to the 14th day of April 1990. This
application
was
in
respect
of
land
bearing
Sy.No.29/1B(P) in respect of 01 acre 17 cents. The Land
3
Grant Committee considered the application of the
petitioner and passed an order recommending the said
land to be granted in favour of the petitioner. This
recommendation was accepted by the Tahasildar and it
is stated that a saguvali-chit was also issued.
2.
This order of grant was challenged by one Vittala
Shetty, by preferring an appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner took the view
that the land sought for by the petitioner could not have
been granted without extinguishing the kumki rights that
Vittala Shetty (Respondent No.4) possessed. The
Deputy Commissioner accordingly cancelled the grant.
3.
It may also be pertinent to state here that the
Deputy Commissioner, in the very same order, also took
the view that the characteristics of the kumki land were
lost by virtue of the unauthorised occupation of the said
land by the petitioner and as a consequence, Vittala
Shetty had also lost his privileges over the said land.
The Deputy Commissioner accordingly allowed the
4
appeal directing the Tahasildar to take the possession of
the land forthwith.
4.
This order was accepted by Vittala Shetty and was
challenged only by the petitioner herein before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
5.
The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal concurred with
the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner and
dismissed the appeal. As against these orders, by which
the grant made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled
and was confirmed in appeal, the present writ petition is
preferred.
6.
It may be pertinent to state here that Vittala Shetty
who had challenged the order of grant in favour of the
petitioner and who claimed kumki privileges did not
challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner by
which the Deputy Commissioner had held that Vittala
Shetty had lost kumki privileges which he had over the
5
said land by virtue of the petitioner9s unauthorised
occupation.
7.
Thus, the only question that is required to be
considered was whether the petitioner was entitled for
grant of the land in question under Section 94B of the
Act.
8.
Section 94-B of the Act categorically states that
notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of
the Act, if the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that
prior to 14th day of April 1990, any person was in
unauthorised occupation of any land, the same can be
granted to him subject to him being eligible. Section 94-
B(1)(i) of the Act reads as follows:
"94-B. Grant of land in certain cases.4
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, if the Deputy Commissioner or
other
officer
authorised
by
the
State
Government in this behalf is satisfied after
holding such enquiry as he deems fit, that a
person,-
6
(i) has, prior to the fourteenth day of April
1990 unauthorisedly occupied any land
including land referred to in sub-
section (2) of section 79 from which
he is liable to be evicted under section
94; and ...."
(emphasis supplied)
9.
Subsection (2) of Section 79 of the Act reads as
follows:
"79. Regulation of supply of firewood
and
timber
for
domestic
or
other
purposes.4(1) x x x
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1) but subject to such general or
special orders that may be issued by the
State Government from time to time, the
privileges that are being enjoyed either by
custom or under any order such as privileges
in respect of Kumki lands, Bane lands and
Kane lands in South Kanara District, Betta
lands and Hadi lands in North Kanara District,
Kan and Soppina Betta lands in Mysore Area,
Jamma and Bane in Coorg District and
Motasthal wet lands in Gulbarga Area shall
continue.
7
10.
A conjoint reading of Section 9
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.