Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 671 (KAR)

Narayana Rao v. State of Karnataka

2013-06-12

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the auction notice dated 30th November 2005 issued by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-L. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to relax the condition for the purpose of regularisation of his unauthorized occupation over the land in question situated in the outskirts of Ramanagaram City. Certain consequential reliefs are also sought for. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is in unauthorized cultivation of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.55 measuring 1 acres 14 guntas of Jiginahally and 0.12 guntas in Sy.No.83 of Bolappanahalli village, Kasba Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore Rural District since 40 years; he has been paying necessary land revenue to the Government regularly; he has raised coconut and mango trees apart from teak trees in the land. The lands in question are belonging to the State Government, since he is in unauthorized occupation of the land for more than 40 years, he made an application for regularisation of his unauthorized occupation under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the Land Grant Committee granted the prayer of the petitioner and consequently the unauthorised occupation of land of the petitioner was regularized; the Tahsildhar as well as the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Land Grant Committee; the matter reached the Deputy Commissioner; the Deputy Commissioner without taking any decision referred the matter to the State Government for consideration; the State Government again sent back the records to the Deputy Commissioner for initiating action; since nothing has taken place thereafter, according to the petitioner, his application for regularisation is still pending consideration. In the mean-while, the State Government has issued notification as per Annexure-L dated 30th November 2005 for auctioning the properties in question alongwith other properties. The 5th respondent participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder; however sale is not confirmed as on this day in favour of the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for regularisation and consequently, the auction notification issued by respondent No.3 is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Sri. The 5th respondent participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder; however sale is not confirmed as on this day in favour of the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for regularisation and consequently, the auction notification issued by respondent No.3 is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued in support of the writ petition by contending that subsequently inserted provision i.e., Section 94-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is not applicable to the facts of the case, inasmuch as, the application is filed much prior to 20th March 1991, on which date, Section 94-A is inserted in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the State Government ought to have relaxed the condition relating to the distance of 1km from City Municipal Council as per Rule 108-N of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules; since the petitioner is poor and is entitled to grant of land under the Rules, the authority should have regularized the unauthorized occupation of the land of the petitioner. Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of 5th respondent opposed the writ petition by contending that the Government records are tampered at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner seems to have not filed application for regularisation of his unauthorized occupation. It seems his father has filed application for regularisation, but however, his name is scored off in the original records of the State Government and the name of the petitioner is inserted. Even assuming that the petitioner has made an application for regularisation, the same is made after 20th May 1991, on which date, Section 94-A is inserted in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and therefore, there is no question of relaxing the condition relating to 1km from the city limits for the purpose of grant of prayer of the petitioner relating to regularisation of unauthorized occupation of the land. Learned Govt. Advocate Sri. E.S. Indiresh, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 also opposed the writ petition by contending that rule 108-N of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1976 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, provisions of the Act cannot be relaxed under any circumstances, unless law is amended. He further submits that Rule 108 deals with relaxation of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and not Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 4. He further submits that Rule 108 deals with relaxation of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and not Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 4. According to the petitioner, he made an application for regularisation of his unauthorized occupation of the land in question. However, the records produced by respondent No.5 alongwith statement of objections creates grave suspicion in the mind of the Court about the veracity of the petitioner. Annexure-R6 produced alongwith statement of objections reveals that the petitioner has falsely stated that he is a landless person. Though seal(date) is put on the said application as 19.9.1991, the same is received by the Tahsildhar only on 30th December 2005. The register maintained by Tahsildhar’s office at Annexure-R7 clearly reveals that the name of the petitioner is inserted in the said register to indicate that he had made an application for regularisation of his un-authorised occupation on 19.7.1991. However, no such application dated 19.7.1991 is forthcoming. Copy of one more application for regularisation is produced alongwith statement of objections at Annexure-R8. The said application stated to have been filed by Narayana Rao discloses that he is a coolie by profession and the seal is put having date of 25th July 1991, but, the said application also is received by the Tahsildhar only on 30th December 2005. Thus, both the applications Annexures-R6 and R8 are received by the Tahsildhar only on 30th December 2005. Another register (form No.51) maintained by the Tahsildhar is produced at Annexure-R9. It clearly discloses that the name of the petitioner is inserted once again. Since the aforementioned documents reveal the insertions and manipulations, I have to conclude that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Only on that ground, the relief needs to be refused to the petitioner. 5. Even accepting the petitioner’s case that he has filed an application for regularisation on 19.7.1991, the said date is subsequent to 20th May 1991, on which date, Section 94-A is inserted in Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, even at the time of so called/assumed filing the application for regularisation by the petitioner (as aforementioned, records to that effect are tampered), the provisions of Section 94-A are applicable to the petitioner’s case also. 6. Section 94-A (4) (second proviso) prohibits the authorities to regularize the unauthorisation of the lands, which are situated within 5km of all City Municipalities. 6. Section 94-A (4) (second proviso) prohibits the authorities to regularize the unauthorisation of the lands, which are situated within 5km of all City Municipalities. Undisputedly, Ramanagaram is a City Municipality as on the date of filing of the application by the petitioner for regularisation. If it is so, it is clear that the Karnataka Land Revenue Act prohibits the authorities from regularizing the unauthorized occupation of the petitioner’s land, as the lands are situated within 5km from municipal area. The submission of Sri. Sadashivappa, that relaxation should have been made by the State Government by accepting the prayer of the petitioner under Rule 108-N of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, also cannot be accepted. Rule 108-N empowers the State Government to relax the rules and not the provisions of the Act. The rules cannot override the Act. The Act does not provide provision relating to relaxation. Therefore, prohibition of regularisation of unauthorized possession of the lands, which are situated within 5km from the municipal area cannot be relaxed by taking the help of Rule 108-N of the Rules. 7. The next submission of Sri. Sadashivappa, that four persons viz., Sri. Shankaregowda, Smt. Chikkatayamma, Sri. Ramakrishna and Okkaligara Sangha were shown leniency by regularizing their unauthorized occupation over the land, which are being cultivated by them unauthorisedly. Such a submission also cannot be accepted. As is clear from Annexure-R6, a letter written by Executive Engineer, Ramanagaram to Tahsildhar, the aforementioned persons viz., Sri. Shankaregowda, Smt. Chikkatayamma and Sri. Ramakrishna were cultivating the lands, which are situated at a distance of about 5.20 km and not within 5km. So also there is no regularisation of unauthorized occupation in favour of Okkaligara Sangha, but, it was a fresh grant in favour of Okkaligara Sangha under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to grant reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.