SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 58017

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top