Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1265 (KAR)

Narayana v. State of Karnataka

2015-11-23

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, perused the memorandum of writ petition and orders impugned, the petition cannot but be characterised as frivolous. Respondent 4-purchaser of 2 acres 21 guntas of land in Sy. No. 27/1 of Alahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk suffered an order of the Assistant Commissioner-2nd respondent, invoking Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 recording a finding that the sale was in violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the said Act and directed forfeiture of the land to the State. That order when called in question by the purchaser-4th respondent in Appeal No. 954 of 2011, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'KAT'), by order dated 30-10-2015 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, as well as the forfeiture by recording findings to the contrary. 2. Petitioners claiming to be unauthorised cultivators of 2 acres 21 guntas of land in Sy. No. 27/1 having filed applications for grant of the said land, made an application to be impleaded as proper and necessary parties in Appeal No. 954 of 2011, which when considered by the 'KAT', was rejected by order dated 5-10-2015. That order is not called in question in this petition. 3. IA No. I of 2015 is filed by the petitioners seeking permission and leave of the Court to prefer this petition calling in question the order dated 30-10-2015 in Appeal No. 954 of 2011 of the 'KAT' on the premise that their legal right is impinged upon by the said order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon Section 77 of the Act to submit that lands when forfeited to the State are susceptible of grant in favour of landless persons and therefore, the order of the 'KAT' impinges upon the right of the petitioners hence entitled to seek leave of the Court to question that order. 5. Ex facie the purchaser of the land having preferred the appeal, which, in law, is entitled to do so calling in question the order of the Assistant Commissioner forfeiting the land so purchased, on the premise of violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Act, 'KAT', having accepted the case of the purchaser that there is no violation, justifiably allowed the appeal and sequentially the forfeiture order set aside. If that is so, then land measuring 2 acres 21 guntas in Sy. No. 27/1 is private land and not Government land and therefore, Section 77 of the Act has no application in the matter of grant of land to the landless persons. 6. In the first place, 'KAT' was fully justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners to be impleaded as proper and necessary parties to the proceedings in Appeal No. 954 of 2011 by order dated 5-10-2015. That order is not called in question and therefore, petitioners cannot maintain IA No. I of 2015 for leave to challenge the final order in the appeal. Even otherwise petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties for the complete adjudication over the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in relation to violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B at the time of purchase of private land by the 4th respondent-purchaser. That finding of the Assistant Commissioner when found to be illegal, private land cannot get converted into Government land so as to fall within the category of land permissible for grant by the State. 7. Petition is hopelessly without merit and is, rejected. In the peculiar circumstances that petitioners are said to be small time farmers, according to the learned Counsel, there shall be no order as to costs.