Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 587 (KAR)

V. Venkatavardhan v. Deputy Commissioner

2008-10-15

P.D.DINAKARAN, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2008
Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The above appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.6.2008 made in Writ Petition No.3031/2008, confirming order of the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner dated 16.1.2008, whereunder the Deputy Commissioner directed the revenue officials to enter the name of the 4th respondent – Trust, over the land to an extent of 13 acres in S y. No.10 of Varadanayakanahalii village, Kasaba flobli, ShidlaghattaTaiuk, which was granted to the 4th respondent by proceedings of the Government dated 24.1993 for running an educational institution, superseding the earlier order of the Tahsildar granting 25 acres of land in favour of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent-Trust, by virtue of the order of the Government dated 24.1993, was in effective possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of 13 acres in Sy. No.10 referred to above. 1. The appellant -- petitioner alleging that the 13 acres of land granted by the Government to 4th respondent-Trust is classified as a Gomal land and the petitioner and other villagers are in unauthorised occupation and are cultivating the same, seeks to quash the order dated 16.1 2008 of the Deputy Commissioner. 2. It was also brought to our notice that when the Tahsildar originally granted 25 acres by proceedings dated 30th July 1986 and ordered to hand over the possession of the property in favour of the 4th respondent, the villagers raised objection on an earlier occasion and also challenged the same before this court, which ultimately culminated in order dated 29.1988 in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.9623-25 of 1988 of the Apex Court. The Apex court after hearing both sides held as follows: - " Heard learned counsel for parties. We find from the impugned judgment that there was a report from the Tahsildar to the following effect: "Out of the total extent of 325 acres of land in Survey No.10, 125 acres remained un-alienated and since the cattle head of the village is 323, 90 acres of land is reserved for grazing of the above-said cattle and out of the remaining land, an extent of 25 acres may be granted in favour of the Trust.......................... " Mr. Sorabjee, counsel appearing for the petitioners states that if 90 acres are really available and are reserved for as grazing land for the cattle of the village, he would not press this application. " Mr. Sorabjee, counsel appearing for the petitioners states that if 90 acres are really available and are reserved for as grazing land for the cattle of the village, he would not press this application. Learned Advocate-General as also counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 agree that the question of allotting 25 acres of land which is impugned in the proceedings would arise only after the reservation of 90 acres is done for grazing purposes. We accordingly dispose of the special leave petitions with a direction that the State shall ensure availability of 90 acres of reserved land for pasturage out of the Survey No.10 and steps may be taken thereafter to allot 25 acres to respondent No.4." 3. It is only pursuant to the said order, the Government has now allotted 13 acres of land to the 4" respondent-Trust by proceedings dated 24.1993, after ensuring the availability of 90 acres of land for pasturage in Sy.No.10 referred to above and possession has also been taken over by the 4t respondent. 4. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.1.2008. However, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the petitioner to workout his rights with regard to the land which is claimed to be under unauthorised occupation as hereunder: - "4. As could be seen from the memorandum of writ petition, petitioner submits that he is in unauthorised possession of land and that therefore, his prayer for grant of land should have been considered by respondents 1 to 3. If the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the land, he will have to file an application in the prescribed form before the appropriate authority within the prescribed period. If such application is already filed within the prescribed period, the same shall be considered by the concerned committee in accordance with law in respect of the land other than 13 acres of land allotted to respondent No.4. “…… Writ petition is disposed of accordingly" 5. If such application is already filed within the prescribed period, the same shall be considered by the concerned committee in accordance with law in respect of the land other than 13 acres of land allotted to respondent No.4. “…… Writ petition is disposed of accordingly" 5. Sri Venkatarama Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner contends that since the appellant and other villagers are claiming that they are in unauthorised occupation even with regard to 13 acres of land, the opportunity given to the petitioner to workout his rights in the manner known to law with respect to the land other than 13 acres of land allotted to the 4th respondent, would no way be helpful to them. 6. Wealso heard Sri B. Veerappa, learned Government Advocate in this regard. 7. After careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that neither the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.1.2008 nor the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.6.2008 requires any interference by us. 8. Section94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the Act), empowers the State Government to constitute a Committee as provided thereunder to regularise certain cases of unauthorised occupation of the land, which belongs to the State. 9. Chapter XII-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules) provides for the procedure to be followed for regularization of the unauthorised occupation of the land owned by the Government. As per Rule 108C, any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any land may make an application in writing to the Tahsildar of the Taluk in Form No.50 in the manner provided therein. Rule 108D prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Committee constituted under Section 94-A of the Act, referred to above. Therefore, if at all, the petitioner and others are in unauthorised occupation of the land, the said land should be owned and possessed by the Government and then only they are entitled to make an application under Rule 108C of the Rules and the same can be processed and disposed of by the Committee following the procedure under Rule 108D of the Rules. 10. But, in the instant case, the impugned land has already been allotted pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, dated 29.1988 in S.L.P (Civil) Nos.9623-25 of 1988 by the Government as early as on 24.1993. 10. But, in the instant case, the impugned land has already been allotted pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, dated 29.1988 in S.L.P (Civil) Nos.9623-25 of 1988 by the Government as early as on 24.1993. It is only under such facts and circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly directed the revenue officials to enter the name of the 4th respondent over the land to an extent of 13 acres in Sy.No.10 by order dated 16.1.2008. The order dated 24.1993 of the Government has become final. If the petitioner or others were aggrieved by the said proceedings of the Government, the same could have been challenged by the petitioner, in the manner known to law, in an appropriate proceeding. 11. In our considered opinion, even to challenge the said order of the Government by the petitioner, on the ground of unauthorised occupation, he should have made an application under Rule 108C of the Rules before the Committee constituted under Section 94-A of the Act, in order to process such application as provided under Rule 108D of the Rules. 12. It is settled law that when a particular matter has to be done in a particular way provided under the Statute, the same should be done and expected to be done only in the manner provided under the Act and the Rules, and not otherwise. In Taylor Vs. Taylor M.R.1875(Vol.I) CD 426 reported in it is held as follows: "..It is enabling, I know, in form, that the application may be by petition; but no other process can be adopted. That has been decided on a great variety of Acts where the application has been directed to be by petition, and it has been laid down that being the mode pointed out by the Act which conferred the jurisdiction, you must exercise the jurisdiction according to the provisions of the Act. That has been decided on a great variety of Acts where the application has been directed to be by petition, and it has been laid down that being the mode pointed out by the Act which conferred the jurisdiction, you must exercise the jurisdiction according to the provisions of the Act. In the same way, when the statute says who is the person to petition, it means that the person or persons so described, and no others, shall be entitled to petition, otherwise any one interested might petition under the general principle that when powers are to be exercised by a Court of law any person interested in calling those powers into execution is entitled to come before the Court, and the only reason for putting in such a section is to show that is not the meaning of the Legislature, but that the right of calling for the exercise of the powers shall be confined to the persons so described." {emphasis supplied} When a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself -vide Captain Sube Singh And Others Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi And Others (2004) 6 SCC 440 . 13. It is only under such facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge had rightly protected the interest of the petitioner as provided in para 4 of the order referred to above, had the petitioner made an application in time. If the application is made after the grant viz, after proceedings dated 24.1993, in our considered opinion, petitioner is not entitled to claim that he is in unauthorised occupation of the land in question, which is no more owned and possessed by the State Government after 24.1993. In this regard, the learned Single Judge, has rightly observed that if such application is already filed within the prescribed period for regularisation of unauthorised occupation under Section 94-A of the Act read with Rule 108C and D, shall be considered by the Committee in accordance with law, in respect of the land other than 13 acres of land in Sy.No.10 of Varadanayakanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, allotted to respondent No.4. 14. Therefore, finding no merit in the Writ Appeal, the same is dismissed.