H. GOPALA GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA — 1998 DIGILAW 732 (KAR)

CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) TWO-AGRICULTURISTS of channarayapatna village of devanahalli taluk, Bangalore rural district, had resorted to the instant writ petition as a public interest litigation. In filing the same, they prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the official memorandum No. Lnd/sr/ (l)/16/1976-77, dated 25-5-1979, passed by the respondent 5-tahsildar, devanahalli taluk, devanahalli, copy as-at Annexure-F to writ petition and also for issue of an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the legitimate grievance of the petitioners as enumerated in their representations, copies as at Annexures-b and c to writ petition and further to retain the status quo condition of the gomal land in sy. No. 163 or for grant of any other appropriate writ. ( 2 ) WE heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Sundaram appearing along with Sri K. N. Subbareddy, the learned high court Government pleader Smt. V. Vidya appearing for the Respondent 1 State and the Authorities-respondents 2 to 5 and Sri C. G. Gopal swamy appearing for the respondents 6 to 10, 13 to 22 and 24 and 29. We have also perused the case records. ( 3 ) WE feel it proper to give a brief narration of the public grievance of the petitioners aired in the instant writ petition in the form of public interest litigation. ( 4 ) THAT, there existed reserved gomal lands to an extent of 66 acres and 13 guntas in sy. No. 181 and an extent of 77 acres, 33 guntas in sy. No. 183 in channarayapatna village in devanahalli taluk within the revenue jurisdiction (taluk) of respondent 5-the tahsildar, devanahalli taluk. That, according to the petitioners there were no other lands earmarked as 'gomal'. That the villagers suffered for want of sufficient land for grazing their cattle. That, the respondents 6 to 31 who held and possessed considerable properties had made applications to the respondent 5-tahsildar, seeking grant of gomal land in sy. No. 183 and that arbitrarily, the respondent 5-tahsildar had granted the lands to the respondents 6 to 31 by his order dated 25-5-1979, copy as at Annexure-F to the writ petition. The said order is under challenge before this court. No. 183 and that arbitrarily, the respondent 5-tahsildar had granted the lands to the respondents 6 to 31 by his order dated 25-5-1979, copy as at Annexure-F to the writ petition. The said order is under challenge before this court. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent 5-tahsildar without considering the genuineness and the legitimate grievances of the villagers and in utter disregard of the land grant rules, governing the land, had granted the subject land to the respondents 6 to 31 and furthermore, the said order came to be passed by the tahsildar overlooking the resolution dated 19-12-1977 passed by the village panchayat, copy as at Annexure-B to writ petition. According to the petitioners, the subject land would have been used for the betterment of the community at large by earmarking the same for the purpose of construction of hospitals, nada kacheri, schools, playgrounds and other civic amenities. That channarayapatna is a hobli head quarters and also a mandal panchayat head quarters. Therefore, they prayed that the impugned Order, copy as at Annexure-F to writ petition be quashed. ( 5 ) THE contesting respondents 6 to 10, 13 to 22 and 24 and 29 represented by the learned counsel Sri C. G. Gopal swamy had chosen to file a detailed objection statement as against the writ petition. In filing the same, they denied all the contentions of the petitioners. According to them, the instant case in hand is a classic example of the 'haves' preventing the 'have-nots' from availing the social benefits programmed by the government in the matter of grant of agricultural lands to the landless or the land-poor. It is also submitted by them that the petitioners herein are the disgruntled residents of the village and they in fact had got filed earlier writ petitions in W. P. nos. 12471 to 12489 of 1979 to challenge the very same order of grant of land to the respondents 6 to 31 and having failed in their attempt with the dismissal of the said writ petitions, they had resorted to the instant writ petition yet again. 12471 to 12489 of 1979 to challenge the very same order of grant of land to the respondents 6 to 31 and having failed in their attempt with the dismissal of the said writ petitions, they had resorted to the instant writ petition yet again. It was also contended by them in their detailed objection statement that the lands were granted to the respondents 6 to 31, either land-poor or the landless and the same was done in consonance with law, inasmuch as the respondent 5-tahsildar had followed all the formalities in the matter of grant of lands to the respondents 6 to 31 at 2 acres each for agricultural purposes and that ever since the grant of the lands, the respondents 6 to 31 have been in possession and enjoyment of the granted lands and they have been cultivating the same for long. For the said reasons; they prayed that the instant writ petition be dismissed with cost. ( 6 ) ON the other side, the respondent 1-state and its authorities, the respondents 2 to 5 in filing their statement of objection had contended that the instant petition lacks bona fides. They also denied that the land granted to the respondents 6 to 31 was illegal. They further stated therein that if at all the land was required by the villagers for the purposes as set out by the petitioners, land is very much available in sy. No. 181. They also denied that the respondents 6 to 31 were not eligible for grant of land. In para 4 of the objection statement they also stated that the respondents 6 to 31 and 5 other persons who have been granted lands of 2 acres each under the impugned order were insufficient holders and landless labourers and as such, they were eligible for the grant of the land in their favour under the relevant land grant rules. It was further contended by them that subsequent to the grant of the subject land under Annexure-F , saguwali chits were also issued in the names of the said grantees and further their names also came to be registered in the mutation register of channarayapatna village during the year 1979 80 and the lands were also 'phoded'. It was further contended by them that subsequent to the grant of the subject land under Annexure-F , saguwali chits were also issued in the names of the said grantees and further their names also came to be registered in the mutation register of channarayapatna village during the year 1979 80 and the lands were also 'phoded'. They also added that the sanction was also accorded by the respondent 4-assistant commissioner, doddaballapur sub-division, under Section 71 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 vide his order dated 25-10-1978, whereby the gomal land in the survey number in question came to be provided for agricultural purposes and as per the said Order, an extent of 66 acres in the sy. No. 183 in question was deemed to have become an agricultural land. In para 5 of the objection statement, the respondents 1 to 5 also had stated that the petitioners were guilty of suppression of fact of the filing of the earlier writ petition bearing W. P. nos. 12471 to 12489 of 1979 by the villagers of channarayapatna village, challenging the very grant made by the said respondents in favour of respondents 6 to 31 and 5 others. ( 7 ) IN para 7 of the objection statement, they also stated that the subject land was made over to the grantees and that all the 31 grantees are in possession and enjoyment of the same with the issue of the saguwali chits in their favour. In the said circumstances, they denied that the order of grant was not given effect to by the respondent 5 as contended by the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents 1 to 5 also prayed that the instant writ petition be dismissed as against them. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners while urging the grounds made out in the writ petition canvassed the following points: (i) that, the respondents were not eligible for grant of the land as they have got the lands in their names and they have got income more than Rs. 8,000/- p. a. (ii) that, the subject land was a gomal land, evidenced by the pahani extracts produced at Annexure-J to writ petition and that the impugned order came to be passed in total violation of the land grant rules. 8,000/- p. a. (ii) that, the subject land was a gomal land, evidenced by the pahani extracts produced at Annexure-J to writ petition and that the impugned order came to be passed in total violation of the land grant rules. (iii) that, though the impugned order came to be passed in the year 1979, the subject land had not been made over to the grantees even to this day. (iv) that, the petitioners being public spirited persons have resorted to the instant writ petition to safeguard the public interest of the public at large of channarayapatna village and that the subject land would have been made use for public purposes such as hospitals, nada kacheri, schools and playgrounds and other civic amenities. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners to buttress his argument had also cited before us the following decisions: (i) B. Sidramappa v State of Karnataka. (ii) B. Veeranna v State of Karnataka. (iii) K. P. Manjunath and others v State of Karnataka and others. (iv) G. B. Bijapur v State of Mysore. (v) Kunnathat That Hunni Moopil Nair v State of Kerala and another. (vi) P. N. Kaushal and others v Union of India. ( 10 ) BOTH the respondents 1 and 5 represented by the learned government, pleader as well as the contesting respondents 6 to 32 have countered the above said contentions of the petitioners before this court in filing detailed objection statement referred to above. They also argued before us in tune with their respective detailed objection statements. ( 11 ) IT is to be pointed out here that having been served with the copies of the objection statements filed by the respondents 1 to 5 on the one hand and the respondents 6 to 31 on the other, they have not chosen to join issues by filing rejoinder thereto. In this context we have also to point out that the villagers of channarayapatna village, the public spirited persons as that of the petitioners herein, had challenged the im- pugned order at the earliest opportunity in the year 1979 itself in filing W. P. nos. 12471 to 12489 of 1979. In connection with the instant write petition before us, we have also collected the records in the said write petitions. On going through the same, we have observed therein that the said writ petitions came to be dismissed for default. 12471 to 12489 of 1979. In connection with the instant write petition before us, we have also collected the records in the said write petitions. On going through the same, we have observed therein that the said writ petitions came to be dismissed for default. We do not Rule out that both the petitioners herein were also behind the said move by the villagers. If their petitions have failed in the earlier round, of course for default, we do not think the petitioners herein can yet again resort to the instant writ petition with the very same prayer and on the very same grounds for and on behalf of the villagers, that too after a long lapse of 18 to 19 years since. ( 12 ) NOW to come to the merit part, we have to state here that the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent 5-tahsildar as long back as in the year 1979 and that the public spirited persons in the petition herein had come up before this court to challenge the same almost after 19 years, that too when physical possession of the subject lands was made over to the respondents 6 to 31 and 5 others and furthermore they are cultivating the subject land for over 19 years since the year of grant and the revenue entries too have been mutated in the name of the respondents and the lands were 'phoded' as contended by the respondents 1 to 5, the state and the authorities and further that the respondents 6 to 31 in filing their detailed objection statement hence, even on the ground of delay and laches, the instant writ petitioner is liable to be dismissed in limine. ( 13 ) YET another aspect of the case is that though the petitioners have made a claim that the respondents 6 to 31 were not eligible for the grant of the land in the hands of the respondent 5 as they were land-rich and that they were having an annual income of Rs. 8,000/- or more rendering themselves as ineligible for grant of the lands in their names, they have grant of the subject lands and that 2 acres each was granted to them in following the land grant rules. The land grant rules they refer to is the Karnataka land grant rules, 1964. 8,000/- or more rendering themselves as ineligible for grant of the lands in their names, they have grant of the subject lands and that 2 acres each was granted to them in following the land grant rules. The land grant rules they refer to is the Karnataka land grant rules, 1964. We feel it appropriate to quote here what respondents 1 to 5 had stated in para (4) of the objection statement. The same reads as hereunder:"4. The contentions of the petitioners that the respondents 6 to 31 are not eligible for grant of land is false and incorrect. It is respectfully submitted that the respondents 6 to 31 and 5 others (who are not parties in the above writ petition) were landless persons and they were insufficient holders of lands. Thus being eligible for the grant of lands in their favour. The respondents 6 to 31 are the residents of the village channarayapatna. The eligibility of respondents 6 to 31 and 5 others after being examined by the then tahsildar and after a thorough enquiry and being fully satisfied, the grant is made on 25-5-1979 in their favour. Pursuant to the grant, the grantees are being given saguwali chits in the year 1979. Subsequently, the grantees came to be in possession except respondents 30 and 31 of the granted land. Subsequent to the grant of the saguwali chits, the names of the respondents have been entered in the mutation register of channarayapatna village during the year 1979-80. Sanction was also accorded by the assistant commissioner under Section 71 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964, vide its order dated 25-10-1978, appropriation of gomal land for agricultural purpose. As per this, an extent of 66 acres in sy. No. 183 is deemed to have become an agricultural land". ( 14 ) WE have got no reason to disbelieve the above said contentions of the respondents 1 to 5, they being the state and its revenue authorities having quasi-judicial powers. ( 15 ) LET apart, we have also closely scrutinised the impugned order of grant at annexsure-f to the writ petition. In that exercise, we have observed that out of the 32 persons in the list to whom the respondent 5 had granted agricultural lands of 2 acres each, 15 belonged to the s. cs, 5 belonged to the s. ts 11 to the b. cs and 1 to ex-servicemen category. In that exercise, we have observed that out of the 32 persons in the list to whom the respondent 5 had granted agricultural lands of 2 acres each, 15 belonged to the s. cs, 5 belonged to the s. ts 11 to the b. cs and 1 to ex-servicemen category. In this connection, we further scrutinized the land holding particulars of the 27 persons (out of 32 herein) made available at Annexure-A to the writ petition. From the same, one thing is clear that they are either 'insufficient holders' as defined under Section 2 (8) of the Karnataka land grant rules, 1964 or totally landless. It is relevant to observe here that under Section 2 (8) of the land grant rules, 1964, the term 'insufficient holder' had been defined as a person who is not a 'sufficient holder' and as per Section 2 (15) of the said rules, 'sufficient holder' had been defined as a person who owns not less than 4 hectares of garden land or 8 acres of dry land or rainfed wet land. We are therefore convinced that the petitioners were eligible for the grant of land under the land grant rules. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners have come up before this court with false pleas thereto. ( 16 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that it is a case of heart-burning by the 'haves' as against the 'have-nots' or the 'iess-haves', totally forgetting the social obligations they should have to the less fortunate ones. All the more, one cannot forget that social Justice is the very constitutional scheme of ours and that being so, in the act of distribution of the lands to the landless or the land-poor in passing the impugned order by the respondent 5-tahsildar, he had only acted in aid of that constitutional scheme of the respondent 1-state. In giving the special sanction in the case in hand for grant of land to the respondents 6 to 31 and others, the state and its authorities in fact had discharged that constitutional obligation to the society, of which the respondents 6 to 31 and 5 other non-party applicants were part and parcel. In giving the special sanction in the case in hand for grant of land to the respondents 6 to 31 and others, the state and its authorities in fact had discharged that constitutional obligation to the society, of which the respondents 6 to 31 and 5 other non-party applicants were part and parcel. In this context, we want to discuss few lines about the social justice, vis-a-vis, the social obligation of the public spirited persons and the social activities as that of the petitioners herein, as we thought it appropriate to do and befitting to the occasion. ( 17 ) THE term 'social justice' in the Indian context has got history and heritage. The term 'social justice' had emerged from the 'social injustice' in-built in our society due to its working system, thinking and prejudices. According to justice p. Venugopal, the former judge of Madras High Court, the 'social justice' is the product of 'social injustice' and that imparting social Justice will bring cohesiveness by removal of the source uf very disunity and disharmony in the society. In his book under the title, 'social Justice and reservation' (at page 2, 1990 publication), Justice venugopal had philosophically but with genuine concern for the amelioration of the vulnerable Section of the society observed, probably rightly, as hereunder:"social Justice is the product of social injustice and seeks to remove social disability by birth resulting in social and economic inequality. It ensures equality of status, equality of opportunity and developmental facilities to all. It has a vital social content intended to promote public welfare. It not only provides for a just society, but also removes all patent sources of disunity and disharmony. Thus social Justice is of great value in providing a stable society and securing the unity of india". ( 18 ) IN this context, we may also recall what Dr. B. r. ambedkar, the chief architect of our constitution, who is well-known not only as a constitutionalist and a parliamentarian, but also as a scholar and a great social reformer stated in the constituent assembly in the matter of social inequality in our society and its removal at the earliest. To quote it, the same reads as hereunder:"on 26th january, 1950, we will have equality in politics and inequality in social and economic life. To quote it, the same reads as hereunder:"on 26th january, 1950, we will have equality in politics and inequality in social and economic life. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest moment, or else those who suffer from it will blow up the structure of political democracy". ( 19 ) FROM the above, message is clear. Let the 'haves' not be intolerant, but on the other hand, act in aid for the betterment and upliftment of the 'have nets' and the 'less haves' bearing in top of their minds the larger interest of the society as a whole. After all society is our make, ill in it has to be removed by the society itself and by none from outside. We may add here that, poverty and squalor somewhere is poverty and squalor everywhere and the same is a bane to society and its orderly growth. It is not out of place to observe here that the slow pedalling and lukewarm attitude in the matter of the agrarian reforms in different states had led to unrest, at times leading to violence and extremist activities. Suffering mass appear to be restless and insecure. Let us read the writing on the wall. Time is ticking and running out alarmingly. ( 20 ) THE above note we have added to frighten none, but by way of caution to all the concerned. In doing that, we have only shown our concern of the society we live in and to some extent bit of social frame of mind of ours, for we cannot forget for a moment that we are part of the society, no matter judges we are, holding high offices. We fondly hope, our discussion on the topic in a passing way may serve only as food for thought. ( 21 ) WITH a note on social chemistry vis-a-vis social justice, now we come back to the subject in hand. In the case before us, as it appears, it can be said with certainty that the respondents 6 to 31 were either the landless or the land-poor and as such, they deserved every sympathy and support in the hands of the respondents 1 to 5. In the case before us, as it appears, it can be said with certainty that the respondents 6 to 31 were either the landless or the land-poor and as such, they deserved every sympathy and support in the hands of the respondents 1 to 5. It is to be pointed out here that the contesting respondents categorically stated in para 2 of their counter that none of them suffered any disqualification in the matter of grant of land in the hands of the respondent 5-tahsildar, as on the relevant date, when the majority of them were marginal holders, rest of them were landless. ( 22 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Sundaram had also cited six decisions referred to in para (8), supra. They are of this court as well as of the apex court. On going through the same, we do not think they are in any way relevant for the purpose of the case in hand. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary for us to advert to the same. ( 23 ) WE have observed yet another contradiction in the case of the petitioners. In filing the writ petition, they have averred in one place that the subject land was needed for the villagers for the purpose. of grazing their cattle as they all suffered for want of sufficient grazing area in the subject land, but in another place, they have averred that the subject land was needed by the villagers for the purpose of construction of hospitals, 'nada kacheris', schools, playgrounds and other civic amenities. When the former purpose is agricultural, the latter purpose is non-agricultural. Therefore, we are convinced to say with certainity that the petitioners are coming before this court with false pleas with ulterior motive in filing the instant public interest litigation. ( 24 ) IN that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. The writ petition therefore has to fail. ( 25 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case that the poor grantees had to come up yet again before this court, we deem it fit to award a cost of Rs. 5,000/- each as against the petitioners. Let that cost be paid by the petitioners to all the contesting respondents 6 to 10, 13 to 22, 24 to 29 within 6 weeks from this date. 5,000/- each as against the petitioners. Let that cost be paid by the petitioners to all the contesting respondents 6 to 10, 13 to 22, 24 to 29 within 6 weeks from this date. It is also added here that in the event of non-payment of the cost herein awarded on the petitioners as directed as above, the said contesting respondents are at liberty to recover the same from the petitioners in the process known to law. ( 26 ) THE writ petition is dismissed with cost as above. Rule issued earlier stands discharged. --- *** --- .