Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1285 (KAR)

B. Madhusudhana Rao v. State of Karnataka

2013-11-08

A.S.BOPANNA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner as at Annexures-H to M. The petitioner is also praying that the letter dated 17-1- 2013 impugned at Annexure-N be quashed. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner who is an ex-service personnel and being entitled for grant of land had made an application in that regard. On consideration of the said application, an extent of 4 acres in Survey No.72 of Aathavadi Grama, Anandapuram Hobli, Sagara Taluk, Shimoga District is granted in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, a sketch has been drawn and the grant certificate has also been issued. Subsequently, since the petitioner noticed that there was indiscriminate growth of acacia trees, the petitioner made a representation at Annexure-M to the Deputy Conservator of Forests. By the said representation, the petitioner had sought that permission be granted for removal of the trees in the said land. Pursuant to the said representation, the Deputy Conservator of Forest has addressed a communication dated 17-1-2013 to the Deputy Commissioner. By the said communication, the Deputy Conservator of Forest has indicated that the wood area cannot be disturbed and therefore, steps be taken to allot an alternate land measuring same extent in the same survey number to the petitioner. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this court. 3. The learned Government Advocate would however seek to justify the action of the respondents by contending that the Deputy Conservator of Forest having noticed that the same is in-fact 'nedu thopu' and since wood area exists and any destruction of the green trees would not be advisable and it is in that circumstance, the Deputy Conservator of Forests has indicated to the Deputy Commissioner that steps be taken for allotment of a different extent of land to the petitioner. It is therefore contended that the right of the petitioner for grant of 4 acres of land in any event has not been interfered with except that a different land has been recommended to be granted and therefore, communication impugned herein in any event does not require consideration by this Court. It is indicated that if the petitioner chooses to accept the different extent of 4 acres of land the same would be allotted to the petitioner in due course. 4. It is indicated that if the petitioner chooses to accept the different extent of 4 acres of land the same would be allotted to the petitioner in due course. 4. Having noticed these aspects of the matter, though in a normal circumstance, the stand taken by the respondents could have been accepted by this Court, I am of the opinion, that in the instant case, the said situation would not arise. To this extent, what is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner has been seeking for grant of land for the past several years and the petitioner was before this Court for the first time in Writ Petition No.30145/2004 on an earlier instance when the extent of land had been granted in favour of the petitioner the same was modified subsequently on the ground that the weaker section of society who were in occupation had to be granted the said land. It is thereafter, the present proceedings had been initiated. In this circumstance, by the order dated 11-2-2010, a detailed consideration was made by the Deputy Commissioner before the grant was ordered in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of the preamble portion of the said order would indicate that the present extent of 4 acres had been examined and had taken note that since there was no tree growth in the said area, a decision had been taken for granting the said land in favour of the petitioner. Even thereafter since there was some delay the petitioner was before this Court and the grant certificate as at Annexure-E has been issued and the sketch is annexed as at Annexure-F. 5. In any event, with regard to grant of 4 acres of land in favour of the petitioner by the said order and the grant certificate issued is not in dispute. The only question for consideration is as to whether the Deputy Conservator of Forest was justified in adopting the present course. In any event, with regard to grant of 4 acres of land in favour of the petitioner by the said order and the grant certificate issued is not in dispute. The only question for consideration is as to whether the Deputy Conservator of Forest was justified in adopting the present course. In this regard, what is also necessary to be noticed is that in the order of the Deputy commissioner while granting the land it has been referred that certain acacia trees are existing in the surrounding area and in that circumstance, if it is taken into consideration and even if it is found that certain trees are existing in the land which has been granted in favour of the petitioner, the procedure in that regard is contemplated under Rule 11 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1969. Having noticed the said provision, the issue as to whether the said process has to be adopted or as to whether the course as advised by the Deputy Conservator of Forest to the Deputy Commissioner is appropriate is to be taken into consideration. 6. Even to consider that aspect of the matter, it is to be noticed that from the records available with the learned Government Advocate it is seen that the Deputy Commissioner on receipt of the impugned communication dated 17-1-2013 has addressed a letter to the Deputy conservator of Forest on 19-7-2013 which clearly indicates that the Deputy Commissioner has disapproved the action being taken by the Deputy Conservator of Forest. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner has sought for the reasons and the provisions under which the Deputy Conservator of Forest is taking such line through his correspondence. Having noticed these aspects of the matter, the further aspect is, it is not in dispute that the area in question and the extent of land granted in favour of the petitioner certainly is not situated in a forest area but is a revenue land and such acacia trees are being grown for the benefit of paper mills. Though it is stated by the Deputy Conservator of Forest as 'nedu thopu', the preamble portion of the order of the Deputy Commissioner discloses that while considering the land for the purpose of grant the land it has been noticed as the land reserved for pasture. Though it is stated by the Deputy Conservator of Forest as 'nedu thopu', the preamble portion of the order of the Deputy Commissioner discloses that while considering the land for the purpose of grant the land it has been noticed as the land reserved for pasture. Hence the head count of cattle is also kept in view and decision has been taken to grant the said land which was in excess of the requirement. 7. Therefore at this juncture even if it is noticed that there is certain tree growth, having regard to the proviso contained in Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules the petitioner was in fact justified in addressing the communication dated 28-1-2013 seeking indulgence of the authorities with regard to disposal of the tree growth on the said land. When such course was adopted by the petitioner as per law certainly the Deputy Conservator of Forest was not justified in his action in seeking to deny the benefit of the land itself which had been granted in favour of the petitioner on ostensible grounds raised by him. 8. Hence, in my opinion, the communication dated 17-1-2013 would not be sustainable the same is accordingly quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents-2 and 3 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner as Annexure-H to M and consider the request of the petitioner keeping in view the provisions contained in Rule 11 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. 9. To enable expeditious consideration the petitioner shall now file one more set of documents along with certified copy of this order with the respondents-2 and 3 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents-2 and 3 shall thereafter act in accordance with law and consider the representation in the manner as indicated above so as to enable the petitioner to cultivate the land which has been granted in his favour and such action in any event shall be taken in a expeditious manner but not later than three months from the date on which representation is submitted. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.