Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 22 (KAR)

SHIVANAND S. PATIL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2002-01-09

N.K.PATIL

body2002
N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of learned Counsels for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the notification dated 6-12-2000 in No. RD 10 LBJ 2000 issued by 1st respondent (Annexure-A ). Further he sought for a direction to respondent 1 to reconstitute the Committee strictly in accordance with the Act and Rules by issuing a mandamus. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is the member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly representing Thikota Constituency in Bijapur District. Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') which has been inserted to the Act No. 2 of 1991 provides for regularisation of unauthorised occupation through the Committee. The Committee constituted under the said section has power to grant the land to the persons who are found to be eligible. Further it is stated, Chapter 13-A of the Rules has also been inserted subsequently, under which the rules have been framed for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of land. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the Committee which has been constituted as per the impugned notification has not been constituted in accordance with Act and Rules made therein. The petitioner is a member representing Thikota Constituency which has major part of bijapur Taluk. Therefore, under Rule 108-E of the Land Revenue Rules, the petitioner as a matter of right is entitled to be a member of the committee. But however, respondent 1 while constituting the Committee has nominated respondent 2 as the Chairman of the Committee though he represents the Bijapur Constituency which is a minor portion in Bijapur Taluk. Hence, the said nomination as member of the Committee is illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the rules of the karnataka Land Revenue Rules. ( 5 ) IN view of this, the petitioner has made detailed representation to the respondent 1 herein bringing out the irregularities noticed in the constitution of the Committee and requested for reconstitution of the same in accordance with the rules. It is also brought to the notice of the deputy Commissioner through representation. . The Deputy Commissioner after considering the representation has sent a letter dated 19-1-2001 to respondent 1 intimating the grievance of the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of the deputy Commissioner through representation. . The Deputy Commissioner after considering the representation has sent a letter dated 19-1-2001 to respondent 1 intimating the grievance of the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent 1 while constituting the Committee has totally ignored the provisions of the Act and Rules made therein. Further he contended that the Government has issued certain guidelines in the matter of constituting the committee wherein the recommendation made by the local Tahsildars and the MLAs ought to have been considered but in the instant case, admittedly the petitioner is an MLA representing the major portion of bijapur Taluk but the said guidelines issued by the Government has been ignored. Therefore, the respondents have disregarded the relevant provisions of the Act and arbitrarily taken the decision. The said decision taken by the respondents is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Even the petitioner's Counsel has pointed out that the Revenue Minister has given assurance on the floor of the House that the Government will not discriminate and take arbitrary action in the matter of constituting the Committee and that he has assured that committee will be constituted in accordance with the guidelines, and the recommendations of the local MLAs will also be considered. But however the 1st respondent having arbitrarily constituted the Committee appointed 2nd respondent as Chairman and respondents 3 to 5 as members of the Committee without considering the case of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rule 108-E of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 which reads thus:"108-E. Members of the Committee. The Committee shall consist of the following members: (i) the member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly representing the major part of the taluk; (ii) three persons nominated by the State Government of whom one shall be a woman and another shall belong to SC or ST; (iii) the Tahsildar of the concerned taluk. The State Government shall nominate one of the members of the Committee as Chairman: provided that if such member of the Legislative Assembly belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the member to be nominated shall not necessarily belong to Scheduled Castes Scheduled tribes". The State Government shall nominate one of the members of the Committee as Chairman: provided that if such member of the Legislative Assembly belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the member to be nominated shall not necessarily belong to Scheduled Castes Scheduled tribes". ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the said rules has not been followed and the authorities have failed to consider the guidelines issued by the Government regarding constitution of the Committee. Therefore, the committee constituted by the respondent is not sustainable. Even otherwise yet another ground the impugned notification issued by the respondent is not sustainable because the Deputy Commissioner by his recommendation dated 19-1-2001 has specifically stated that the petitioner is entitled to become Chairman of the said Committee. The said report sent by the Deputy Commissioner has not been taken into consideration. Therefore, in my considered view the impugned notification issued on 6-12-2000 by respondent 1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the scheme of relevant Rule 108-E of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules would defeat and subvert the basic principles of representative and the responsible Government. 'if law making authority has not followed their own laws, then who should follow' will arise. Therefore, taking into consideration all these factors in toto, at any stretch, the impugned notification issued by the 1st respondent is not at all sustainable. Hence, it is liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 6-12-2000 is hereby set aside and the matter stand remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act and Section 108-E of the KLR Rules, 1966 and also taking into consideration the guidelines issued by the Government and recommendations sent by the deputy Commissioner for constituting the Committee as expeditiously as possible, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 10 ) THE learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks from today. --- *** --- .