Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 683 (KAR)

S. MUNIVENKATAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2001-09-03

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2001
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are the brothers, sisters and children of one late Smt. Narayanamma and her husband late subbaiah. They claim that late subbaiah purchased 3 acres 20 guntas of land in sy. No. 248 of banguvadi village in srinivasapur taluk in the name of his wife Smt. Narayanamma under a registered sale deed dated 19-8-1996. It is claimed that they are in unauthorised occupation of the adjacent land in sy. No. 249 to an extent of 15 guntas and they have filed application seeking regularisation of the same. But, out of sy. No. 249, which is a government land, an extent of 2 acres had been transferred to the education department for purpose of playground of government higher primary school by way of grant under the Provisions of the Karnataka land revenue act and land grant rules of 1969 by the 2nd respondent-deputy commissioner under annexure-a, dated 20-9-1996. Challenging the said Order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Karnataka appellate tribunal. By the impugned order at annexure-b, dated 23-11-2000 the tribunal dismissed the appeal. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking to quash the impugned orders at annexures-a and b. ( 2 ) THE two grounds raised in support of the writ petition are (1) the impugned orders are violative of principles of natural justice, and (2) the orders are passed without considering the revenue entries in the name of the petitioners. ( 3 ) THE grounds raised in the writ petition are wholly untenable. In the first place, neither the petitioners nor their parents had any right, title and interest over the land granted under annexure-a. Government being the owner of the said land, it has got every right to grant the same to any deserving persons. The transfer of land is for a public purpose for playground of the government school at the request of the villagers. Hence the same cannot be quashed at the instance of the petitioners. ( 4 ) IN the second place, mere filing of application seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the land will not confer any right upon the petitioners. The order at Annexure-B passed by the tribunal reveals that no documents were produced to show that petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the land. The order at Annexure-A reveals that the land is free from encumbrances, including unauthorised cultivation. The order at Annexure-B passed by the tribunal reveals that no documents were produced to show that petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the land. The order at Annexure-A reveals that the land is free from encumbrances, including unauthorised cultivation. Such being the factual position, the claim of the petitioners that they are in unauthorised occupation of the land cannot be accepted. Even before this court also they have not produced any document in proof of their unauthorised occupation except the acknowledgements at annexures-c and d for having filed application seeking regularisation of alleged unauthorisation of the land. It is thus clear that the claim of the petitioners is without any basis. The petitioners' right and claim for their regularisation of their unauthorised occupation is not a absolute right under rules, it is the discretion of the authority in view of Rule 108-l of the Karnataka land revenue rules of 1966. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that hukdari rights were granted in favour of late subbaiah and hence the land in question could not have been transferred to the education department, is wholly untenable. There is no document produced for having granted hukdari rights. Even if such a right was granted, it was only for the enjoyment of fruits of the malkies and nothing more. The same will not confer any other right. ( 6 ) SINCE petitioners have no legal or vested right over the land in question, question of hearing does not arise. Hence, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Even otherwise also, the land grant rules or the Provisions of Karnataka land revenue act relating to regularisation of unauthorised occupation do not contemplate right of hearing. The contention urged in this regard is misconceived and the same is rejected. ( 7 ) WRIT petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. --- *** --- .