Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 649 (KAR)

Doddaiah v. State of Karnataka

2011-06-27

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2011
Judgment :- This writ petition has come up for orders on the application in Misc W No.5852 of 2011 filed by the fifth respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, praying for a restraint order against the writ petitioner, on the premise that the interim order of status quo granted by this court on 18-4-2011, reading as under: The parties to maintain status quo till next date. Call after vacation. Has caused lot of hardship, misery and even harassment to the fifth respondent, now represented by daughter – Ms Aparajammanni, who is being called to the police station on the premise that the high court has granted an order in favour of the writ petitioner and therefore writ petitioner is entitled to remain in possession of the subject land etc. 2. When the matter was taken up for orders on the application, as objections have already been filed not only to the application but also to the main writ petition, and with the consent of Sri Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahantesh S. Hosmath, learned counsel for fifth respondent Sri. R. Omkumar, learned AGA, appearing for respondents 1 to 4, taken up for disposal and the writ petition is disposed of by the following order. 3. This writ petition is a typical example of misuse and abuse of powers of this court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as to how persons who have even admittedly committed illegalities, have managed to procure orders starting from the tahsildar up to the high court and have managed to perpetuate the illegalities to the detriment, hardship and agony of law abiding citizens. 4. This petition is also a typical example of how any beneficial scheme in respect of affected persons can be hijacked by muscle flexing, law violating but physically and otherwise also powerful persons, taking law into their own hands and seeking the aid of procedure and the hierarchy of the system of appeals and revisions to perpetuate their illegalities and as to how even the High Court is taken for a ride by obtaining orders dubious in nature such as “status quo” orders. 5. 5. The subject matter of this writ petition is an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.1/98 of Kenchanahalli Village, H D Kote taluk in Mysore district, which is a land which was earmarked for being granted in favour of persons who had been affected and who had lost their agricultural lands in the lands which got submerged on account of construction of Kabini reservoir across Kabini river. 6. The subject land, without dispute, had been granted in favour of the fifth respondent Ms. Cheluvarajammani w/o late Siddappa Urs (since deceased, now by her legal heir-daughter Ms Aparajammanni), as per a grant order dated 29-8-1973 in proceedings No LND 4-12/73-74, passed by the Additional and Special Assistant Commissioner for grant of lands in Hunsur sub-division, under which order the very persons had been granted another extent of 3 acres in Sy No.1/00 of very village, as a person who had lost an extent of 6 acres of her land due to submergence in the backwaters of the reservoir. 7. The fifth respondent while has asserted that ever since the grant, she had been in possession and cultivation of the subject land, her possession was disturbed and in fact she has been dispossessed from the subject land in the year 1976 and therefore had approached the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore for restoration of the land by removing the encroachment by the present writ petitioner in this writ petition and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore had passed an order to this effect in favour of fifth respondent in this writ petition in case No.LND.412/1979-80 dated 12.5.1982, directing the lower revenue authorities to evict the petitioner from the subject land and to restore possession in favour of the fifth respondent. 8. Against this order, the present writ petitioner preferred appeal No.126 of 1982 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 8. Against this order, the present writ petitioner preferred appeal No.126 of 1982 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The appeal came to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 17.3.1986 (copy at Annexure-A) allowing the appeal and not merely setting aside the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore and remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur for fresh enquiry and consideration but went beyond the scope of the appeal, in discussing the validity or otherwise of the grant that had been made earlier in favour of the fifth respondent; that though grant was in favour of the fifth respondent; that the appellant before the tribunal had been cultivating the subject land and had raised crops in the years 1978-79 onwards; that he belonged to scheduled caste community and residing at Kenchenahalli Village which facts are not disputed, but on the other hand admitted by the present fifth respondent in this writ petition who figured as first respondent in the appeal; that the appellants before him had also given an application for grant of one block of the very subject land as per application filed on 9.3.1979; that there were recommendations by the Revenue Inspector in favour of the applicant (Present writ petitioner) indicated that the present fifth respondent – first respondent before him – grantee was residing in Mysore town with her daughter and she had evinced interest to reside in the village only in the year 1978-79 onwards when she had obtained saguvali chit on 22.11.1978 by executing necessary commitments though the order of grant was dated 29.8.1976; that the grant of six acres of land in favour of the fifth respondent herein was beyond the competence and jurisdiction of the Tahsildar; that the grant in favour of the said person was also in violation of rule-5 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and as the appellant before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was landless person whereas the first respondent before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was residing at Mysore; that the very grant was illegal, contrary to the statutory provisions and as it suffered from many infirmities, it deserved to be set aside; that while granting the land in favour of said Cheluvarajammani, the revenue authorities had not taken into consideration the factum of the appellant being in possession, cultivation etc., and therefore opining so, to set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner. 9. Aggrieved by this order, the fifth respondent - Cheluvarajammani had approached this court by filing writ petition No.8900 of 1986. 10. The learned single Judge of this court, on examination of the petition, found that the Tribunal had gone beyond the subject matter of the appeal before it which was at the instance of the present writ petitioner; that validity or otherwise of the grant was not either an issue or subject matter of appeal; that the appeal being only against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner to evict the writ petitioner from the subject land and to restore it to the grantee; that the Tribunal could not have ventured to either cancel the grant or to opine that the grant was an illegal one and deserved to be cancelled etc.,; that the Tribunal has exceeded jurisdiction in passing such an order and for that reason, holding that the order of the Tribunal is patently illegal order and what was challenged before the Tribunal at the instance of the present writ petitioner is not even clear or known on record and also noticing that there was nothing on record to show that the present writ petitioner who was respondent in that writ petition was in possession of the said lands and when such was the factual position based on record, the Tribunal venturing to record findings in favour of the present writ petitioner is nothing short of committing a blatant illegality and has suffered from many errors of law apparent on the face of the record, set aside order as per order dated 16.1.1996 (copy at Annexure-B). 11. 11. Against this order of the learned single Judge, writ petitioner had preferred further writ appeal in WA No.965 of 1996 which though came to be dismissed in terms of the Judgment dated 8.8.1997 (copy at Annexure-C), the division Bench on noticing that the appellant had made an application for grant of subject land 3 acres in Sy No.1/98 and as grievance of the appellant was that it had not received proper consideration, dismissed the appeal, observing as under: “In so far as the contention that the Appellant has also made an application for grant of the very land granted to Respondent No.1 is concerned, this is a matter to be investigated by concerned authorities as to whether the Appellant made such an application in time and if so, whether the Appellant entitled for the grant of land under the scheme viz., persons whose lands are acquired under Kabini Project to be rehabilitated for grant of land reserved under O.M.No. L & D/4-12/83-84 dated: 29.08.1973 under Section 71 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. If he is entitled for such a grant, the authorities shall take appropriate steps in that regard after giving notice to all the parties concerned in the matter. However, we make it clear that the grant made in favour of Respondent No.1 remains undisturbed by this order. We find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed subject, to the observations made above.” 12. However, we make it clear that the grant made in favour of Respondent No.1 remains undisturbed by this order. We find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed subject, to the observations made above.” 12. It is after dismissal of the appeal filed by the writ petitioner in such emphatic and categorical terms, the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur, purporting to be acting as per the letter/direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore in No.LND.2.PR.412/79-80 & 165/1996-97 dated 26.10.1997 and also on the basis of the Judgment of this court dated 6.6.1997 rendered in writ appeal No.965 of 1996 and purporting to examine the grant of land in Sy.No.1, block nos.98 and 99 in Kenchanahalli Village of H D Kote Taluk, Kasaba Hobli has embarked upon passing the order dated 4.4.2002 in Proceedings No.LND.28/1998-99 (copy at Annexure-D) and has cancelled the grant of the extent of 3 acres of land in favour of the fifth respondent herein in Sy.No.1/98 which was as per the grant order No.LND.4-21:73-74 dated 29.8.1973 and considering the case of the writ petitioner as a very special case and on the premise that the subject land to an extent of 3 acres was in the unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the writ petitioner for quite some time and as the writ petitioner was also a farmer who had been affected by the submergence of lands in the backwaters of Kabini reservoir, ordered grant of this land in favour of the writ petitioner. 13. It was now the turn of the original grantee to appeal against this order in Proceedings No.Ra.1/2002-03 and with positive result as the Deputy Commissioner accepted the appeal and allowed it as per order dated 17.2.2003 (copy at Annexure-E), set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 4.4.2002 and remanded the matter for reexamination and orders holding de novo enquiry. 14. The present writ petitioner being aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Commissioner went up in appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.334 of 2003, but this time the Tribunal being of the view that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was proper and sustainable in law, dismissed the appeal as per its order dated 6.10.2003 (copy at Annexure-F). 15. 15. With the dismissal of the appeal, the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur, yet against became active on this occasion, registered case suo motu, issued notice to both the writ petitioner and fifth respondent and acting in terms of the remand order dated 17.2.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore in RA No.1/2002-03, examined as to whether the grant that had been made in favour of the fifth respondent, granting an extent of six acres of land was valid, tenable and sustainable for the reason that she had lost an extent of 5 acres 13 guntas of land in Sy.No.154/1 of Malali Village due to submergence in Kabini reservoir and as to whether saguvali chit dated 22.11.1978 was valid etc., and being of the view that the subject land was granted in proper manner in favour of the fifth respondent for justifiable reasons and records indicated that she was in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and also noticing that there was no application at all filed by the writ petitioner for grant or regrant of any land in this survey number in his favour and also recording finding that the writ petitioner was not eligible for grant of any land in his favour in terms of the subject scheme of rehabilitation of persons who had suffered due to submergence of their lands in the backwaters of the reservoir and also that the writ petitioner had failed to establish that he was a person who had been evicted by any of the lands belonging to him, having got submerged in the backwaters of the Kabini reservoir, ordered that the grant of total extent of 6 acres in favour of the fifth respondent was valid and directed the revenue entries to be mutated in accordance with this position as per his order dated 21.4.2005 (copy at Annexure-G). 16. 16. Writ petitioner yet again appealed against this order to the Deputy Commissioner, but without any success as the Deputy Commissioner in terms of his order dated 30.1.2006 (copy at Annexure-H) after examining the matter in some detail, opined that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was fully in consonance with law and in tenor with the observations made by the High Court in writ appeal No.965 of 1996 and the grant of 6 acres in favour of the fifth respondent as person who has been affected by the implementation of the Kabini reservoir project and in granting land from out of land reserved for rehabilitation of such persons in terms of section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), dismissed this appeal. 17. Writ petitioner further approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.333 of 2006, but the Tribunal also finding no occasion to interfere or disturb the order passed by the lower authorities and dismissing the appeal on 31.1.2001 (copy at Annexure-J), the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.333/2006 dated: 31st January 2011 vide Annexure ‘J’ confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner in case No.RA 1/2005-06 dated 30.01.2006 vide Annexure ‘H’, which in turn confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner in Case No.LND 28/1998-99 dated 21.04.2005 vide Annexure-‘G’. b) Issue a writ of mandamus dispensing the respondent to grant/regulating the occupation of 3 acres of land in Block No.1/98 in Survey No.1 of Kenchanahalli, Antara Sante Hobli, Heggadevanakote Taluk, Mysore district, Mysore. c) Issue any other writ/order/direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 18. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. b) Issue a writ of mandamus dispensing the respondent to grant/regulating the occupation of 3 acres of land in Block No.1/98 in Survey No.1 of Kenchanahalli, Antara Sante Hobli, Heggadevanakote Taluk, Mysore district, Mysore. c) Issue any other writ/order/direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 18. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. Vinod Prasad, learned counsel has very vehemently urged that all the authorities have overlooked the factum that the writ petitioner was in actual possession and cultivation of the subject land to an extent of 3 acres even before the grant was made in favour of the fifth respondent; that the writ petitioner being a person belonging to scheduled caste community was entitled to get his unauthorized occupation regularized and though this aspect had been properly noticed and appreciated by the Tribunal in its first order of the year 1986, unfortunately, that order having been set aside, but the findings recorded therein about such actual physical possession of the writ petitioner in the subject land and which the Tribunal had noticed as per records to be in favour of the writ petitioner should have been taken note of by the authority and with the writ petitioner in actual physical possession and cultivation all along or prior to the grant and being a resident of the place, namely, Kenchanahalli, was entitled for the grant being made in his favour, but declining to grant the extent of 3 acres in favour of the writ petitioner is nothing short of depriving or denying the facility for regularization of unauthorized occupation in favour of the writ petitioner; more so even when special provisions have been made in favour of persons belonging to scheduled caste community; that orders passed by the authorities are not sustainable, should be set aside and the authorities directed to grant the extent of 3 acres of land in favour of the writ petitioner on the basis of the application which factum according to learned counsel for the petitioner had been noticed by the Tribunal in the first instance and yet again by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 4.4.2002 and in support of his submission, the following observation that had been made by the Tribunal in the first round order dated 17.3.1996, “The records go to show that the appellant No.1 had already given an application asking for grant of his block as long as on 09.03.1979 itself and has started cultivation and the Revenue Inspector had recommended for grant of land in favour of the appellant No.1. It was the duty of the concerned authority to consider his application before the grant of said land in favour of R1.” And submits that view of the Tribunal is further supported by the finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 4.4.2002 “Kannada” And therefore submits that the authorities could not have overlooked this factual position; the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal are in error in setting aside the order passed on this factual position. 19. Sri Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that while the writ petitioner has no right for regularization of unauthorized occupation of any land; that the subject land was one reserved in favour of persons who are affected by the Kabini Reservoir project and had been exclusively earmarked for grant in favour of such persons who are affected in terms of section 71 of the Act and such being the case with the authorities having noticed that there was no affectation by the formation of project against the petitioner, the rejection or non-grant as per order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and affirmed in appeal by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is justified; that there is no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner to act in terms of Annexure-D; that when the petitioner’s case was that he was in unauthorized occupation, he is not one to get any grant in terms of scheme and therefore there is no merit in the writ petition which is to be dismissed. 20. It is also submitted by learned additional Government Advocate that the subject land earlier was reserved forest land which was de-reserved only in the year 1973-74 and given to the revenue department for the purpose of accommodating persons affected under the implementation of the Kabini reservoir project and therefore the version that the writ petitioner was in unauthorized occupation and cultivation from the year 1973 onwards is a fantastic, imaginary claim and not nearer to reality. 21. 21. Sri Mahantesh S Hosmath, learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the order passed by the Deputy commissioner as affirmed by the Tribunal is perfectly in consonance with the order passed by the High Court passed in the earlier round both in writ petition and writ appeal; that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is clearly in cross purposes and in contravention of the provisions of law which only deserves to be set aside; that this court had allowed the writ petition only because perusal of the record did not support the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the writ petitioner was either in possession or cultivation or that the subject land was not in the occupation, possession and cultivation and finding without based on any material and in the absence of any record to this effect was a perverse, illegal finding and therefore the order of the Tribunal had been set aside and to fall back on that very finding of the Tribunal to say that some facts had been noticed in favour of the writ petitioner by the Tribunal is nothing but distortion of the order and at any rate the Tribunal’s order has no valid sanctity in law in placing reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner. 22. I have perused the orders, looked into the matter placed before the court and examined submissions made at the Bar. 23. The dispute arose in the context of grant of Government land which was earlier a reserved forest land de-reserved for a specific purpose and granted in parcels of 3 acres each with block numbers made out of Sy.No.1 given one sub survey number as 1/98 and 1/99 each subject survey number measuring 3 acres. The de-reservation of forest land and reservation in terms of section 71 of the Act was for the specific purpose of granting parcels of this land in favour of persons who were affected or displaced by implementation of the Kabini reservoir project. The categorical finding of the authorities is that there is no material forthcoming to indicate that the writ petitioner is one who is affected by implementation of the project. On the other hand, it was the specific case of the writ petitioner that he is in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of an extent of 3 acres. The categorical finding of the authorities is that there is no material forthcoming to indicate that the writ petitioner is one who is affected by implementation of the project. On the other hand, it was the specific case of the writ petitioner that he is in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of an extent of 3 acres. The problem arose only because writ petitioner wanted to compete with fifth respondent to displace the fifth respondent-a person who had been granted this land and wanted this land for himself. 24. While the version that the writ petitioner was in unauthorized occupation and cultivation even prior to the grant is obviously a false claim as prior to the grant, it was only a forest land and persons who were for the first time rehabilitated in the period after having been displaced from the submerged place. Writ petitioner also claims to be a person who has gone and settled in Kenchanahalli after submergence of his house earlier in Magge Village. 25. It was not even the case of the writ petitioner that all his lands got submerged, but his house got submerged. Even the version of the writ petitioner is that as noticed by the Tribunal or the Assistant Commissioner, he had filed an application on 9.3.1979 whereas the grant in favour of the fifth respondent is as on 29.8.1973. In fact, the complaint of the fifth respondent against the petitioner before the Special Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the writ petitioner got into possession by encroachment and unauthorized occupation is also of the year 1979-80 which had been registered by the deputy Commissioner and became subject matter of the order dated 14.2.1982 directing action to be taken against the writ petitioner to remove his encroachment on the said land and to restore possession in favour of the fifth respondent. This sequence of events clearly indicate that the writ petitioner if at all was a person who had made an application on 9.3.1979 and who has obviously tried to get into the land on and after this date whereas even saguvali chit had also been issued in favour of the fifth respondent as on 22.11.1978. 28. This sequence of events clearly indicate that the writ petitioner if at all was a person who had made an application on 9.3.1979 and who has obviously tried to get into the land on and after this date whereas even saguvali chit had also been issued in favour of the fifth respondent as on 22.11.1978. 28. In fact, this court noticed that the Tribunal embarking on issues not before it and recording findings not based on evidence or material on record, but on imaginary grounds, set aside the order in terms of the order dated 16.1.1996 passed in WP No.8900 of 1986 in the following words: 6. The contents of the endorsement at Annexure-P would show that respondents 1 and 2 sought for a copy of the grant order made in favour of the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner dtd. 12.5.1982 and the Deputy Commissioner by his endorsement at Annexure-P made known to them that it is only a office correspondence and hence the same can not be issued. It is required to be sated that the land was granted to the petitioner as far back as on 29.8.1973, which is at Annexure-A and what was purported to have been done on 12.05.1982 was only to put the petitioner in possession of the lands when there was a serious threat to her rights from the respondents 1 and 2, who appeared to have entered upon the land unauthorisedly and were posing a serious threat to her enjoyment of the lands granted to her by the competent authorities under a special scheme for grant of land to the expropriated ryots. Therefore as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order sought to be challenged in the appeal before the Tribunal was only a correspondence and not any order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his appellate powers under Section 49 of the Act and hence the Tribunal could not have entertained the appeal under Section 50 of the Act, in the absence of any order made by the appellate authority under Section 49 of the Act. What appears to have been done on 12.5.1982 by the Revenue Authorities is that the petitioner was put back into possession of the lands granted to her in the presence of the villagers and may be by evicting the respondents 1 and 2 from their wrongful occupation. What appears to have been done on 12.5.1982 by the Revenue Authorities is that the petitioner was put back into possession of the lands granted to her in the presence of the villagers and may be by evicting the respondents 1 and 2 from their wrongful occupation. It is evidenced by the mahazar at Annexure-M, and a mere mahazar drawn by the revenue authorities cannot be challenged before the Tribunal. Therefore, the only document which appears to have come into existence on 12.5.1982 is at Annexure-M under which the petitioner was put in possession of the lands granted to her in the presence of the Tahasildar and the Villagers. As I have already stated, Annexure-M is in the nature of a Mahazar rather than an order made by the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 49 of the Act so as to be challenged before Tribunal under Section 50 of the Act. By no stretch of imagination the document at Annexure-M can be treated as an order passed by the appellate authority under Section 49 of the Act. The several annexures to the appeal memo filed before the Tribunal by the respondents 1 and 2 herein are only in the nature of correspondence made between them and the revenue authorities and there appears to be no order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, so as to enable the Tribunal to entertain the appeal and pass the impugned order at Annexure- O. The Tribunal had even gone to the extent of canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner, though no such relief was claimed by the respondent in their appeal, nor it was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal had exceeded in its jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal and passing the impugned order at Annexure- O. Though the order of the Tribunal makes reference to an order dtd. 12.05.1982 as being challenged before it in the appeal, I find no such order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dtd. 12.05.1982, which was said to have been impugned in the appeal filed before the Tribunal and the only document dt. 12.5.82, I find from the records is a mahazar dtd. 12.05.1982 as being challenged before it in the appeal, I find no such order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dtd. 12.05.1982, which was said to have been impugned in the appeal filed before the Tribunal and the only document dt. 12.5.82, I find from the records is a mahazar dtd. 12.5.1982 under which went further to cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioner under the premise that the said grant has been made in accordance with the general provisions of the land grant rules. It is required to be stated that in the instant case, the grant to the petitioner was made under the special scheme sponsored by the Government to grant lands to expropriated persons, who lost their land in Kabini Project launched by the Government. It is very clear from Annexure-A that it was a special grant and not an usual or general grant made by following the procedure prescribed under the normal grant of lands. The Tribunal proceeded to cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioner, without there being any such challenge before any of the competent authority and in the absence of there being any order of the first appellate authority to give jurisdiction to it to entertain the appeal. Such an exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal is not justified. The Tribunal was therefore wrong in exercising jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal and canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner as an expropriate right. That being so, this Court in its jurisdiction can issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Tribunal which is patently an error of law. The Tribunal was therefore wrong in exercising jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal and canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner as an expropriate right. That being so, this Court in its jurisdiction can issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Tribunal which is patently an error of law. In these circumstances, this Court will not be exceeding in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal at Annexure-O. In the result, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal at Annexure-O is hereby the possession of the granted lands were delivered to the petitioner in the presence of the Tahasildar and the Villagers and as I have already stated the said document is in the nature of a delivery mahazar and the same by no stretch of imagination could be said to be an order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 49 of the Act so as to be impugned in the appeal filed before the Tribunal under Section 50 of the Act. What at the most could be gathered from Annexure-M dtd.12.05.1982 is that the respondents 1 and 2 who were in unauthorized occupation of the land as on 12.05.1982 were removed and the present petitioner was put in possession thereof (of the granted land made in her favour on 29.8.1973) in the presence of the Tahasildar and the villagers. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents 1 and 2 had any legal right to remain in possession of the said lands. When that being the case, the respondents 1 and 2 had no right to interfere with the rights of the petitioner in respect of the lands granted to her under the special scheme. But respondents 1 and 2 sought to challenge some imaginary and non-existent order of the Deputy Commissioner dtd.12.05.1982 and have been successful in obtaining an order from the Tribunal, which is patently an illegal order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several decision of this Court but it is not necessary to quote those decision because as I have already indicated above how the impugned order of the Tribunal at Annexure-O suffers from an apparent error of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several decision of this Court but it is not necessary to quote those decision because as I have already indicated above how the impugned order of the Tribunal at Annexure-O suffers from an apparent error of law. The tribunal had not only entertained an appeal on the basis of some imaginary order said to have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner but it set aside. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.” Inspite of such clear indictment of the order of the Tribunal and findings therein and this being on factual basis affirmed by the division Bench in writ appeal, dismissed the appeal without any merit but only making observation that if as claimed by the appellant, application for re-grant had been made in accordance with law and was pending, that can be examined. 27. The most disturbing and shocking development after this is that the Assistant Commissioner purporting to act an order and Judgment of this court in writ petition and writ appeal respectively and purporting to act on the letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.10.1997 embarks upon recording findings not based on record and commits the very folly that had been committed by the Tribunal in assuming jurisdiction to examine the legality or validity of the grant that had been made in favour of the fifth respondent. While if at all any scope was left for the revenue authorities to act as per the Judgment of the division Bench of this court, it was only for examination of the application for regularization said to have been made by the present writ petitioner and if it was in accordance with law, within time etc.,. 28. In the guise of examining such an application, the Assistant Commissioner assumes jurisdiction not vested in him, embarks upon going into the correctness or otherwise of the grant made in favour of the fifth respondent as though that was the issue and for a good measure seeks support from the order of the High Court to indulge in such arbitrary, whimsical conduct. 29. 29. The order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 4.4.2002 is nothing short of a clear contravention of the order passed by this court in writ petition and writ appeal, clearly derogatory with the order therein and the affirming Judgment in the writ appeal and is a perversion of an order. It is also a clear incident of colorable exercise of power by the Assistant Commissioner by assuming jurisdiction not available with him, but the Assistant Commissioner acting on the pretext of the direction or order passed by the High Court and further communication from the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District. 30. The manner in which the Assistant Commissioner has embarked on all such impermissible acts is nothing short of making a mockery of the judicial system and virtually one challenged the system and acting at cross purposes. 31. The revenue authorities have become a law on to themselves. They are power drunk. All sorts or orders are passed by the revenue authorities for all sorts of considerations except for adhering to the statutory provisions and principles of fair play, reasonableness and fairness in their action. 32. It is high time the revenue authorities bear in their mind that they are acting as statutory functionaries and particularly so, while acting as statutory functionaries in the matter of grant of land etc., when they are acting as representatives of the State as it is the land belonging to the State that is being granted to persons deserving such grants in accordance with the statutory schemes. 33. The very word ‘grant’ is a misnomer in our present system of governance under our Constitution. We are a social democratic republic and such grants are anathema to rule of law and the manner of governance by the State Government which is a welfare State, required to act in the matter of distribution of the State largess in favour of deserving persons. 34. A grant is a colonial concept of feudal era and a gratis or gift by the Ruler in favour of the subject. It is at the total whim, fancy and discretion of the Ruler. No one can question the discretion of the Ruler in granting some part of the largess of the State to ‘A’ and ‘B’ and denying it to ‘Y’ and ‘Z’. It is at the total whim, fancy and discretion of the Ruler. No one can question the discretion of the Ruler in granting some part of the largess of the State to ‘A’ and ‘B’ and denying it to ‘Y’ and ‘Z’. But, in a democracy, in a social democratic republic governed by rule of law and the Constitution, such manner of functioning is not permitted nor courts can permit it. Unfortunately, the concept of a grant which was a feudal concept which got into the law book or statutory provisions during the Britishers’ regime when our country was colony of Britishers, has continued, without eliciting commensurate attention at the hands of our legislators and has come in very handy for corrupt revenue officials to hold their darbars! to make grants in favour of persons whom they like, perhaps who take case of them, but denying it to other deserving persons. 35. It is high time the Government takes note such development, arbitrary and irrational conduct on the part of revenue authorities, amends the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, particularly, relating to the provisions of grant of land. It may be that the State Government may take shelter that some of the provisions of this enactment have received judicial attention and have been upheld, but that is no good answer. It is the requirement of the day and the time to ensure that public authorities act in a proper manner to ensure that they are not conferred with such powers which they can misuse and abuse as it is noticed by this court such powers of grant of land has been more often than not misused and abused by the revenue authorities than put to proper use. 36. With the reputation of the revenue officials and higher revenue authorities, particularly, the Tahsildars, Assistant commissioners and the Deputy Commissioners having taken a beating in recent times and being at a very low ebb, it is high time that the State Government acts to denude them of the power of grant of land and to vest it in a proper authority. In fact, the Supreme Court of India noticed such illegalities and irrational orders being passed and therefore directed constitution of a Committee in the matter of regularization of unauthorized occupation in favour of deserving poor people, to landless persons who had occupied Government lands out of sheer necessity and for survival. 37. Unfortunately, an object of this nature is misused and abused by the revenue authorities to make grants in favour of persons who please them, who take care of them, who may even induce them with bribery and for granting lands which are not cultivable, which command great market value being in the vicinity of big towns and cities and there being unending competition for getting Government lands at throw away price as so called upset price or such other prices fixed by the revenue authorities for grant is only nominal amount having no relationship or semblance of market value of the subject land etc.,. 38. The conduct of the Assistant Commissioner in the present case which has been rightly frowned upon by the revenue authorities, particularly in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal, which has been set aside, leaves much to be desired. In fact, while the concerned Assistant Commissioner definitely deserves scrutiny and examination on the side of administration by the employer for taking commensurate action as may be warranted in accordance with the service conditions governing and regulating the service conditions of such state government employees, after examining the entire matter, I am of the clear opinion that the Assistant Commissioner has acted clearly in disregard and in violation of the orders passed by this court and has assumed jurisdiction which in fact was observed as not one within the domain of the appellate tribunal, but in a matter which has gone back in such proceedings, yet again assumes such jurisdiction, is nothing short of acting in clear derogation of the order and nothing short of contravention of the order passed by the High Court, bringing to disrepute the order passed by this court, virtually belittling the order and acting in an arbitrary manner. 39. This court while exercising power of judicial review of administrative action does not sit in appeal over the order nor sits in Judgment over the conduct of the statutory authorities. 39. This court while exercising power of judicial review of administrative action does not sit in appeal over the order nor sits in Judgment over the conduct of the statutory authorities. It is not their conduct which is in issue, but the manner in which the orders have come to be passed, whether after following due procedure etc.,. With all that, when it is noticed by this court that the order passed by this court is not respected, obeyed and on the other hand clearly disregarded and a statutory authority acts in contravention; at cross purposes with the order passed by this court in writ jurisdiction, affirmed in appeal by the division Bench of this court, it is a clear case of orders passed by this court being brought to disrepute, and belittling the authority of this Court, affecting the majesty of the judicial system. 40. I am therefore of the opinion that the conduct of the Assistant Commissioner in bringing about the impugned order at Annexure-D is nothing short of committing contempt of the proceedings of this court and for the reason that it is not only acting at cross purposes with the order of this court, but belittling the order of this court. 41. Contempt jurisdiction is one for upholding the dignity and majesty of judicial system. It is not the jurisdiction for protecting the Judges of this court or superior courts or to cover up their misdeeds which may perhaps has happened on many occasions in this country, but when it has come to the notice of this court that a lower ranking official exercising statutory powers has crossed his limits, has acted in manner derogatory of the order passed by this court, it is nothing short of committing contempt of court proceedings. 42. It is therefore the Registrar General of this court is directed to issue contempt notice to Mr. Malleshaiah, the then Assistant Commissioner at Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur, for having acted in contravention of the order passed by this court in writ petition and writ appeal and calling upon the said person to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. 43. The Registrar General of this court is also directed to attach a copy of this order along with the notice to be issued to the said Assistant Commissioner Mr. 43. The Registrar General of this court is also directed to attach a copy of this order along with the notice to be issued to the said Assistant Commissioner Mr. Malleshaiah and to place the matter before the appropriate Bench after eliciting orders in this regard from the Chief Justice of this court. 44. Writ petition is therefore dismissed levying cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner payable in favour of the fifth respondent, as this is a clear case of misuse and abuse of the process of writ jurisdiction, virtually depriving other deserving litigation of the scarce judicial time of this court. 45. Cost to be deposited before the Registry within four weeks from today. If cost is not deposited, registry to issue a certificate in favour of the fifth respondent, for realizing the amount as though it is a decree of a civil court. 46. In view of dismissal of the main writ petition itself, no need to pass orders on Misc.W.No.5852 of 2011 for temporary injunction; does not survive for consideration, hence dismissed.