Judgment :- 1. In the present days when land is sold at a premium and more so lands which were formerly agricultural lands, even gomal land which have now become part of an urbanized agglomeration, in any place or town, while in Bangalore city, Mysore city or as in the instant case in Davangere town, various devices are adopted to gobble up lands ultimately, particularly by persons who claim themselves to be land developers and builders and one popular method of taking land out of the character of government land is by getting the land in the first instance allotted to an institution on the premise that the institution intends to carry on some educational activities, but the land is later conveniently sold away at a far better price than what was initially spent for allotment etc., on one pretext or the other, and only persons who can buy such lands by paying the market price or near about are persons who are in the business of construction, who are both capable or investing funds and manipulating public authorities for getting permission even for impossible things, and in this unhealthy race for gaining, at the cost of all, sufferers are only persons who with some hope and aspirations might be in occupation and cultivation of the land etc. Developments in this regard had been noticed in the order passed by this Court on 25-07-2011 and are as under: A government gomal land is a land to be conserved and preserved for pasteurization of village cattle, such was the laudable object under the provisions of the Karnataka object Revenue Act and Rules and even earlier under the Karnataka Land Revenue Code. 2. But no more so, government lands comes in handy for state government, the political bosses, bureaucrats at all levels and more so, at the level of revenue officials starting from the Tahsildar, the Asst Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner who are the revenue authorities making such grants under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to pass orders granting such gomal lands and such transactions getting the seal of the government also whether it is permitted in law or in consonance with law or not! 3. 3. Subject matter, 3 acres of land in Sy.No.213 of Avaragere Village, Davangere Taluk and District which was without dispute a gomal land was a granted as per order No.LND.CR2.80:91-92 dated 10.5.1994, in favour of the 4th respondent – Educational Institution for construction of a school building etc. and being a government grant, it did carry certain conditions. 4. Such land was permitted to be sold by the State Government on the representation of the grantee to the effect that the granted land was not suitable for starting an educational institution or constructing a school etc. but the permission also carried a condition that a school building should be put up in a like area and it should be at Honnur Grama as was requested by the grantee and that the school building should be constructed within 3 to 4 months. 5. It appears the school building was not constructed at Honnur Grama, but in the meanwhile, the grantee did sell the land and in the bargain made a good profit by selling the subject 3 acres of land in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 8 at a price of `34.00 lakhs for the entire extent of 3 acres of land. 6. For the purpose of the grant it appears the government had also taken steps to de-reserve the gomal land, but writ petitioners claim that they have been in unauthorized occupation, had put up huts therein and have been living in the area for quite sometime. In between and even during the pendency of the writ petition before this court, it appears there was a fire mishap at the spot and about 100 huts burnt in the area as on 23.2.2011. 7. Stand of the government is that the subject land was granted after it was de-reserved in the year 1994 and when once permission was also given to the grantee to sell the land being sold in the year 2007, and thereafter the land being sold in the year 2008, government is no more interested and revenue authorities have no role to play in the subsequent events, particularly, whether there is unauthorized occupation of some parts of the land as the subject land is now a private property and not government property any more. 8. 8. However, in terms of the order dated 18.07.2011 and as per the directions of this Court reading as under: “DVSKJ: 18-07-2011 WP.Nos.41785 & 41847-48/2010 These writ petitions have come up for orders today before the Court pursuant to the order passed on 11.7.2011 on the Misc. W. 1188/2011 reading as under:- DVSKJ: 11.07.2011 WP No.41785 of 2010 & WP Nos.41847-41848/2010 ORDER ON MISC. W. 1188 OF 2011 Misc. W. 1188 of 2011 for impleading is allowed. Applicants permitted to come on record as respondents 5 to 8 in the present writ petitions. Counsel for the petitioners to amend the cause title. Examination of the writ petitions is very limited. Petitioners have sought for protection on the premise that they are in possession of the subject land whether legally, unauthorizedly or by any other means etc. Whether the Petitioners are in possession or the fourth respondent had a valid title and in turn have conveyed as good title in favour or persons who are permitted to come on record as respondents 5 to 8 as per today’s order, is not the question that can be examined in writ jurisdiction. Also as to whether the grant of the year 1994 is a valid grant and if so what consequences could have befallen on the writ petitioners need not be gone into as it is submitted by Sri. Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners that the writ petitioners have already taken some protective measures to safeguard their possession by filing OS No.263 of 2009 before the Court of Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.,], Davanagere wherein figures respondents 1 to 4 in this writ petition. It is open to the petitioners to implead the newly added respondents herein as defendants in the suit. Insofar as the present proceedings is concerned. if the respondents should file an affidavit undertaking before this court that if the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation, they will be evicted in the manner known to law, it will suffice for disposal of these writ petitions. List the matter for such purpose on 18.7.2011.” 2. Insofar as the present proceedings is concerned. if the respondents should file an affidavit undertaking before this court that if the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation, they will be evicted in the manner known to law, it will suffice for disposal of these writ petitions. List the matter for such purpose on 18.7.2011.” 2. While no undertaking is filed before the Court on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3, submission of Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA is to the effect that there is no question of filing any such undertaking or affidavit as the subject land is no more a government land and also in view of the stand of these respondents that petitioners are not in occupation or cultivation of the subject land nor have they made any application for regularization etc., as per the available provisions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, nor have the petitioners paid any T.T. fine as is the requirement of law, if they have to assert that they have been in possession albeit unauthorisedly in the subject land for the past 15 years etc. 3. On the other hand, Sri Satish M. Dodddamani, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 submits that these respondents are prepared to file an affidavit before the Court, particularly, in the wake of subsequent developments such as these respondents having approached the Civil Court and having obtained suitable orders from the Civil Court by filing O.S.Nos.50, 52, 54 and 56/2011 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Davanagere, not only against the three writ petitioners, but also one another person by name Lingaraj etc., 4. Petitioners’ assert they are persons who are in unauthorized occupation and have put up huts and submission of Sri Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners is that a large number of such persons numbering about more than 100, are in occupation etc. 5. Question of possession cannot be gone into by this Court in writ proceedings. However, in the facts interest of justice 2nd respondent – The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, is hereby directed to personally visit the spot, ascertain the factual position that prevails on the subject land and submit a report before this Court by next Monday i.e., 25.07.2011. List the matters for further orders on 25.07.2011. However, in the facts interest of justice 2nd respondent – The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, is hereby directed to personally visit the spot, ascertain the factual position that prevails on the subject land and submit a report before this Court by next Monday i.e., 25.07.2011. List the matters for further orders on 25.07.2011. Registry to furnish a copy of this order to Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA forthwith.” Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere has placed his report before this Court. 9. The report inter alia indicates that a few persons are in occupation in some pats of the subject land of 3 acres of land; that there is also a road covering an area of 11 guntas; that there are only 4 to 5 families in temporary thatched huts; that one person is running a tea shop for the past 3 years and one person who has put up a residential construction not very pakka is living their for the past 4 to 5 years and claims to be a watchman; that petitioners are conspicuously absent at the subject land nor any other persons are found living as of now i.e. on 21.7.2011 when the Deputy Commissioner visited the spot along with the Asst. Commissioner and the Tahsildar of the Taluk. The report also mentions that the education institution to whom the land had been originally granted appears to be running an educational institution as of now at Belavanur village. It is also mentioned that the petitioners assuming that they are seeking regularisation of their unauthorized occupation as per the provisions of Section 94-C of the Act, have not made any application either in terms of section 94-C of the Act or in terms of Section 94-A and 94-B in Form 50/52 and therefore nothing further is required to be done on the part of the respondents etc. 10. Tahsildar of the Taluk Mr. Harish is also present before the Court today and states that it is a fact that there was a fire mishap in the subject land and over 100 huts were burnt on that day. The police are investigating the crime as registered in Crime No.24/2011 at Vidyanagara Police Station, Davanagere for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 427, 504 r/w 149 of IPC. 11. The police are investigating the crime as registered in Crime No.24/2011 at Vidyanagara Police Station, Davanagere for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 427, 504 r/w 149 of IPC. 11. However on a perusal of the official memorandum dated 10.5.1994 – the grant order in favour of the 4th respondent passed by the 2nd respondent, produced by respondent Nos.5 to 8 along with the statement of objections to the petition indicates that:- “KANNADAM” the extent of gomal land reserved is in fact less, but it is further reduced by another 3 acres only for the purpose of granting subject land in favour of the fourth respondent and this is a sequel to the Government Order dated 19.10.1993. 12. If so, there was need for increasing the area for gomal and not for reducing. This together with a direction of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of the District, copy of which is produced as Annexure-G1 to the writ petition dated 10.12.2010, only indicates that the grantee had violated the terms of the grant and therefore some action was required to be taken and such direction issued to the Tahsildar of the Taluk. 13. It is rather puzzling as to how the Deputy Commissioner is writing such a letter to the Tahsildar even when the stand of the respondents is that the Government had permitted the grantee to sell away the land even in the year 2007. 14. Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that necessary records in this connection will be placed before the court by next week. 15. Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to place before the court the records relating to de-reservation and also permission granted by the Government in the year 2007. List on 1.8.2011. 2. 14. Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that necessary records in this connection will be placed before the court by next week. 15. Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to place before the court the records relating to de-reservation and also permission granted by the Government in the year 2007. List on 1.8.2011. 2. In the present case, a land which had been granted in favour of an educational institution – fourth respondent institution – way back in the year 1994 as per grant order dated 10-5-1994, though was never put to the use for which it was granted, is said to have been sold away in the year 2008 at a considerable profit in favour of respondents 5 to 8 and this had caused considerable heartburn amongst the villagers, who quite naturally would have felt aggrieved, as the land which was originally in the nature of gomal land wand was diverted for construction of a school in the village, instead is sold away by the grantee to some private developers and can only result in further deterioration and degradation of surrounding areas with haphazard growth, but the laudable purpose of providing education to the village children is lost. 3. After indulging in all such activities, the state government wants to wash off its hands by now claiming that the property is now a private property of respondents 5 to 8 and therefore it has nothing to do with it. 4. However, submission of Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA is that the subject land in the first instance was not a free grant, but on payment of market value of a sum `50,000/-per acre, in addition to conversion charges of around `23,000/- per acre and if the subsequent development so warranted and with the permission of the state government, the land is sold by the grantee in favour of a willing buyer, and the grantee wants to invest the amount by purchasing land and constructing a school in the neighbouring village, no exception can be taken to the transaction and the petitioners cannot seek for invalidation of such action etc. 5. 5. Learned AGA also, by drawing attention to Section 69 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the Act] submits that government granting permission to sale of granted land is neither an act impermissible in law nor the present situation is a case where no permission has been secured and therefore the fourth respondent transferring the land only after getting permission from the government is a valid transfer etc. 6. Sri D Nagaraj, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8, the subsequent transferees of pats of the land from the grantee, submits that subsequent purchasers should not be victimized for whatever reasons; that the petitioners and the fourth respondent may be at loggerheads, but respondents 5 to 8 being bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, their interest cannot be affected in writ jurisdiction, that they have already filed civil suits in OS Nos. 50, 52, 54 and 56 of 2011 for restraining persons like the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore submits that no interference is warranted by this court in 226/226 jurisdiction and urges for dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. Records which have been shown to the court by learned AGA and some of the contents reveal much more than what they have at their face value; that the huts in the subject land were no doubt unauthorized structures put up there, were destroyed by fire not due to any accidental fire but appears to be more a deliberate act on the part of fourth respondent. 8. Be that as it may, though learned counsel for fourth respondent asserts and submits that no FIR has been registered at the jurisdictional police station on such incident naming the secretary of fourth respondent institution, irrespective of this, the fact remains that fire was not accidental, but deliberate, which means there is something radically wrong in our system and poor people and weak people do not get protection in law, more so when powerful and influential persons are interested in government lands! 9. 9. In the wake of the earlier report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of the district as per his report dated 21-7-2011, two things are clear; firstly the subject land was originally a gomal land, secondly that after the first incident, there are only a few people on the land as of now viz., a person running a tea-stall and watchman etc. 10. land originally reserved as gomal land, assuming that it can be de-reserved and diverted it should be one for serving a general cause or a public purpose and not for favouring/granting it to private persons to make profit out of the granted land and it is not very material to examine what consequences can befall the purchasers when that grantee sells away the land and has put in some third persons on the land, who come up with a plea and defence of equity etc. 11. It is high time that such reserved lands, which are nothing but properties of the government and in turn properties of the people of this state and the country, are best utilized for any public purpose and not diverted in favour of private persons, for making gains by private persons trading in the granted land. It is more important for the state to take care of the interest of the poor, illiterate and the weak and to provide them with sufficient/needed facilities to ensure that state action is in consonance with the directives given to the state in Part-IV of the Constitution of India if the directives are to be realized and achieved. State action cannot be for achieving the contrary. 12. It is therefore, that irrespective of the prayer made in the writ petitions, direction is issued to the Deputy Commissioner of the district to resume this land of three acres in the subject survey number, which was originally a gomal land and which has been diverted in favour of others by a series of transactions, and the subject land is best utilized for rehabilitating persons who are really in need of accommodation, particularly as the land is now considered to be within an urbanized area and no more the need that it should be reserved as gomal land and which cannot be used for any agricultural purpose as of now. 13. 13. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to co-opt the development authority in the area for preparing a scheme through which the land can be utilized for construction of dwelling units and identify persons who are in dire need of shelter and who need the place only for their residence and allot the same in their favour but not to transfer the ownership rights etc. The state government and the central government who come up with a variety of schemes periodically like ashraya scheme etc etc., to ensure that necessary funds are made available from one such scheme for rehabilitation of poor landless people belonging to weaker sections and depressed classes in the society. 14. It is open to respondents 5 to 8 to approach a civil court for damages, if any, against any person, if they think so and in accordance with law. 15. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.