Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 192 (KAR)

GANGAIAH v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT

2002-03-08

N.K.PATIL

body2002
N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THESE matters have been taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsels for both the parties. ( 2 ) IN these petitions the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 8-3-1999 in Case Nos. 40 and 41 of 1998-99 passed by the first respondent confirming the order dated 17 1-1996 made in Case No. LND. RUC. CR 116/1995-96 by the 2nd respondent, cancelling the grant of land measuring 20 guntas in Sy. No. 14, Block no. 13, 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy. No. 14, Block No. 14 and 1 gunta in Sy. No. 14, Block No. 12 of Bommanahalli, respectively, in favour of the petitioners granted by the Land Grant Committee by resolution dated 18-1-1993. ( 3 ) THE petitioners herein are the unauthorised cultivators of the land measuring acre, 1 acre 9 guntas and 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy. No. 14 of bommanahalli Village, Hebber Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, since from several years along with similarly situated persons. The petitioners have filed applications under the provisions of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), for regularisation of their unauthorised cultivation before the Regularisation Committee. ( 4 ) THE said Regularisation Committee after conducting the inquiry and after obtaining report from the subordinate officials of the department, prepared a sketch and after scrutinising the materials on record and having satisfied with the unauthorised cultivation of the Government land by these petitioners the Regularisation Committee by its order dated 18-1-1993 has taken decision by regularising their cultivation. In pursuance of the said decision taken by the Regularisation committee, the saguvali chit was issued after collecting necessary fees. Thereafter, the names of the petitioners were entered in the mutation and record of rights and the copies are at Annexures-E and El, respectively, to the writ petitions. ( 5 ) IN view of the order passed by the Regularisation Committee by regularising these lands of the petitioners, they have been put in possession and enjoyment of the said lands in question. ( 6 ) THE further case of the petitioners is that the land in Sy. Nos. 15 and 17, which are also government lands, are adjacent to Sy. ( 6 ) THE further case of the petitioners is that the land in Sy. Nos. 15 and 17, which are also government lands, are adjacent to Sy. No. 14, have also been regularised in favour of several persons by the Regularisation Committee on the very same date i. e. , on 18-1-1993 along with the unauthorised cultivators in Sy. No. 14 of the same village. ( 7 ) BE that as it may, there was a proposal for acquisition of land in sy. Nos. 14, 15 and 17 of Bommanahalli Village for formation of Hemavathi canal, which was regularised by the Regularisation Committee to several persons. Accordingly, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and preliminary notification was issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition ACL on 19-11-1993. It is further case of the petitioners that the Land Acquisition Authority without dispossessing the grantees in Sy. Nos. 14, 15 and 17 in accordance with law, have forcibly formed the canal in the said survey numbers in the year 1995 itself. The petitioners resisted the alleged illegal act of taking possession of the lands granted in their favour. The Land Acquisition Authority instead of acquiring the lands by paying the compensation in respect of the lands utilised for formation of canal, have initiate proceedings to cancel the grant made to these petitioners and several others with the respondent 2. ( 8 ) IN pursuance of the said request made by the Land Acquisition authority the 2nd respondent issued show-cause notices to cancel the grant on the ground that the date of the issue of saguvali chit the lands were notified for acquisition for formation of Hemavathi Canal. The petitioners on receipt of the said show-cause notices have filed their written objections before the 2nd respondent, bringing to his notice the fact that in pursuance of the resolution dated 18-1-1993 of the Regularisation Committee, they have got the legal right and they are entitled for possession and enjoyment of the lands in question. Even they have fairly submitted before the 2nd respondent that the land has been taken forcibly for utilisation of the Hemavathi Canal. They have no objection for the said acquisition of the lands in question subject to the condition that reasonable compensation be awarded to them, as it was done in others case, who are also similarly situated. Even they have fairly submitted before the 2nd respondent that the land has been taken forcibly for utilisation of the Hemavathi Canal. They have no objection for the said acquisition of the lands in question subject to the condition that reasonable compensation be awarded to them, as it was done in others case, who are also similarly situated. The said objections and oral submissions made by the petitioners through their Advocates have not at all been considered by the 2nd respondent, instead cancelled the grant made in favour of these petitioners on the sole ground that on the date of preliminary notification the saguvali chit was not granted to the petitioners and hence they are hot entitled to seek any relief. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent cancelled the grant made in favour of these petitioners by his order dated 17-1-1996. ( 9 ) ASSAILING the correctness of the said order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the first respondent under Section 49 of the Act. The first respondent had also dismissed the appeals by upholding the reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent, by the order dated 8-3-1999. These petitioners assailing the correctness of the orders passed by the first and second respondent, respectively, have presented the instant writ petitions before this Court. ( 10 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for petitioners is that the grant was made by the respondents in favour of these petitioners by the Regularisation Committee as early as in the year 1993. As on that day there was no public purpose. Even the Regularisation committee after scrutinising the relevant papers and report submitted by its subordinate officers and in pursuance of Section 94-A of the Act, has rightly regularised the unauthorised cultivation of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the saguvali chit was issued and mutation has been sanctioned and their names have been entered in the record of rights and pahani. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed out that the proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 suo motu is one without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the act. Even when the petitioners were pleaded before the respondents that in respect of the Sy. Nos. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed out that the proceedings initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 suo motu is one without jurisdiction and contrary to the relevant provisions of the act. Even when the petitioners were pleaded before the respondents that in respect of the Sy. Nos. 15 and 17 portions of the lands have been utilised for formation of Hemavathi Canal from the persons who are similarly situated as that of the petitioners and their grant was also made on the same date when the petitioners were regularised and also by the same resolution, which is adjacent to Sy. No. 14 belonging to the petitioners and others, and also the authorities have made all the arrangements to pay compensation to the acquisition in respect of those lands, the respondents denied the same benefit to the petitioners herein. The petitioners have also requested not to discriminate them and to pay same compensation. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners rightly pointed out that as per the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, if they want to cancel the grant, they must invoke the relevant provisions of the Act. In the instant case, they have not at all followed the procedure and contended that these petitioners have not obtained the grant by way of fraud and misrepresentation. But the authorities without mentioning and without following the due process of law as required under the Act and Rules, committed an act which defeats their legitimate right to get payment of compensation. The respondents have adopted this type of illegal method by instituting proceedings and have passed the impugned orders contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Hence, he submitted that the impugned orders passed by the first and second respondents are not at all sustainable in the eye of law and hence they are liable to be rejected. ( 13 ) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader, inter alia, contended that in view of the acquisition proceedings initiated for the public purpose as it is excavation of Hemavathi Canal work, the proceedings have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, it was been abondaned in view of that these lands are karab lands. In the relevant revenue extracts it is shown as Government lands. Subsequently, it was been abondaned in view of that these lands are karab lands. In the relevant revenue extracts it is shown as Government lands. Hence, they have excluded from 6 (1) Notification, which is approved by the Government on 3-1-1995. However, he has not brought to the notice which are the relevant provisions on which they have pursuaded to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the grant made in favour of these petitioners under relevant provisions of the Act. He only made out a case that the land is question is required for the public purpose. In view of it as per section 25 of the Act, the respondents have exercised powers and cancelled the grant and the said cancellation of the grant is justified by the respondents. ( 14 ) THE questions that arise for my consideration are: (1) Whether the proceedings initiated by the respondents for cancellation of the grant is in accordance with law? (2) Whether the petitioners have made out a case for their legitimate claim for payment of compensation? ( 15 ) BE. Point No. (1): the track of the records discloses that the grant has been made in favour of these petitioners strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and after thorough verification of the unauthorised occupation of the lands in question by them since from several vears and accordingly they have filed the application for regularisation of their unauthorised cultivation. The Competent Authority after going through the sketch prepared by their subordinate officials and after receipt of the report from the concerned officials of the respondent, have rightly considered their request and passed the resolution regularising their unauthorised occupation of the lands in question by a notification as early as in the year 1993. ( 16 ) IT is significant to note that as on the date of grant the regularisation in favour of these petitioners dated 18-1-1993 there was no public purpose as such has been made out. Once grant has been made by the competent Authority it becomes final and legal rights as envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India accrues to the grantees. Once they have made out the case for claiming the legitimate compensation, the respondents could have considered their case, instead of depriving their legitimate right accrued in their favour by grant. Once grant has been made by the competent Authority it becomes final and legal rights as envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India accrues to the grantees. Once they have made out the case for claiming the legitimate compensation, the respondents could have considered their case, instead of depriving their legitimate right accrued in their favour by grant. Therefore, in my considered view the impugned proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent for cancellation of the regularisation made in favour of these petitioners are without jurisdiction. The only reason assigned by the respondents 1 and 2 is that they have admitted the grant made in favour of these petitioners and saguvali chits were issued in their favour. Hence, they could not get the legitimate right. Therefore, they have exercised their inherent powers and passed the orders. Such a reason assigned by the respondents 1 and 2 in the impugned order is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules or it is the case of these petitioners that they have taken regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of the land as per the relevant provisions of the Act and rules. If that is so, it is not open for the respondents to initiate proceedings contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act to deprive the legitimate right of the petitioners. ( 17 ) FURTHER, it is significant to note that the respondents being responsible officers of the department ought not have been taken the law into their own hands and proceeded with the completion of Hemavathi canal work. Even the petitioners were not dispossessed without following the due process of law, instead the respondents have utilised the lands in question for such work. This conduct of the respondents will suffice this Court to strike down the orders passed by them. Accordingly, in my considered view the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 is liable to be quashed. ( 18 ) RE. Point No. (2): there is no dispute regarding regularisation of the unauthorised occupation of the land in question in favour of these petitioners as early as in the year 1993, that too before the alleged acquisition proceedings were initiated by the respondent and thereafter abandaned the same on the ground that these lands are Government lands. ( 18 ) RE. Point No. (2): there is no dispute regarding regularisation of the unauthorised occupation of the land in question in favour of these petitioners as early as in the year 1993, that too before the alleged acquisition proceedings were initiated by the respondent and thereafter abandaned the same on the ground that these lands are Government lands. In the instant case, once the unauthorised cultivation of lands by these petitioners have been regularised by the Competent Authority, the petitioners have accrued their legitimate right and are entitled for the compensation as enunciated under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. ( 19 ) FURTHER, after grant of the land the saguvali chit has been issued by collecting necessary fees from these petitioners and their names have been entered in the relevant records. When that is the case, the respondents atleast have considered their request for a reasonable compensation in their favour. Furthermore, the respondents 1 and 2 have considered the similar request made by the persons who are the owners of the similarly situated lands in Sy. Nos. 15 and 17, which is adjacent land to Sy. No. 14. If once when the respondents 1 and 2 have considered the request of the persons similarly situated in respect of Sy. Nos. 15 and 17, they are bound to consider the similar request made by these petitioners. ( 20 ) THE track record of this case not only distressing but alarming and the manner in which the authorities have treated the poor rustic villagers is unpardonable. This Court would be failing in its duty if it allows the officers who are respondents for this state of affairs to get away. I have looked at the gravity of the subject-matter of this dispute and I find that the poor villagers' case has not been considered for payment of compensation in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners. There are limits to harassment at the hands of public authorities and this case is a classic illustration of how the rustic villagers are being made to run from pillar to post and are being harassed by a set of obviously motivated and heartless officers. There are limits to harassment at the hands of public authorities and this case is a classic illustration of how the rustic villagers are being made to run from pillar to post and are being harassed by a set of obviously motivated and heartless officers. It is elementary that if the authorities have refused to reconsider the alternative request of these petitioners for bare payment of compensation when others similarly situated persons' case has been considered and the arrangements were made to pay over the compensation to them. The refusal to consider the grant order therefore makes absolutely no difference to the record or to the position of law. Taking into consideration the totality of the case the petitioners have made out for consideration for payment of compensation in respect of the lands utilised for Hemavathi Canal work by the respondents authorities, the petitioners are entitled to seek direction from this Court with regard to consideration of their request for a reasonable compensation for the lands in question. ( 21 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are hereby set aside. A direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of a reasonable compensation on the similar lines as it was done in respect of the grantees in Sy. Nos. 15 and 17 of the same village, as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. ( 22 ) THE High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .