Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1266 (KAR)

Seethamma Madappa v. State of Karnataka

2015-11-23

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. Petitioner's husband by name Capt. C.P. Madappa having served in the Defence of this nation for 31 years, honourably retired on 22.5.1973 and while in service made applications after applications through the Commanding Officer to the then Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar of Virajpet taluk, Kodagu District for grant of land in Birunani village, Kodagu District reserved for Defence personnel. Post retirement, petitioner's husband settled down at Birunani village, Kodagu District, occupied government land measuring 9.50 acres in Sy. No. 22/2 and brought it under coffee cultivation and other horticultural crops anticipating grant and paid TT fine. Eversince his death, during the year 1993, petitioner-widow continued to cultivate the land, paid TT fine and requested for grant of the said land. 2. From out of the wedlock petitioner is said to have begotten two children, one of whom having served in the Defence of the nation as Major Ganesh Madappa succumbed to the bullets of terrorists in Budgam district of Kashmir sacrificing his life in the finest traditions of the Indian Army and was posthumously awarded the 'Shaurya Chakra', commending his valiant effort to secure the borders of our country, as an example, and as a beacon, to be emulated by all the Defence personnel. 3. The aforesaid facts not in dispute, here is a State Government and its authorities, more appropriately, Thsildars, Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners who have held office since the year 1966, unmindful of making of grant of land to a defence personal. Years have rolled by without any useful purpose served by posting revenue officers in the taluka of Virajpet in District of Kodagu, except for collecting their salaries and did nothing precious in the matter of grant of lands under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, for short 'Rules', more appropriately to the petitioner despite fervent requests. It is not known as to what more the applicant was required to do to secure the grant of land since the 'Rules' do not provide for anything better than making an application. The statutory obligation on the part of the Revenue officers under the 'Rules' is to consider the applications, and pass orders on the application within a short span of time and not keep them pending for years to come. 4. The statutory obligation on the part of the Revenue officers under the 'Rules' is to consider the applications, and pass orders on the application within a short span of time and not keep them pending for years to come. 4. The 'Rules' provides for preparation and publication of list of lands available for disposal under Rule 3(1) and to notify it in the taluk office, as well as the Chavadi of the Village, so as to make it available for inspection with the concerned Village Accountant. Under Sub-rule (3) of Rule (3) every list prepared shall be revised and brought up-to date each year and notified not later than the first day of July of that year; Rule (4) provides for eligibility of persons for grant of land for agricultural purpose, while Rule (5) provides for reservation, more appropriately of 10% of such land for ex-servicemen and soldiers; Rule (6) provides for order of priority in the matter of grant of land, while Rules (7) provides for extents of lands to be granted; Rule (8) the procedure for grant of lands for agricultural purposes; Rule (9) conditions of grant; and Rule (10) restriction on disposal of land in certain cases. In short, the 'Rules' is a comprehensive Code in the matter of grant of land and the procedure to be followed. The provisions of the Code require the Tahsildar to comply with the statutory requirements, one of which is the preparation of the list of lands available for grant which has to be updated and revised on a yearly basis on a date not later than 1st July of that year. 5. Sadly in this case neither there is neither a preparation nor publication of list of lands available for disposal, as required by Rule 3 of the 'Rules' although Sy. No. 22/2 of Birunani village, said to be government land, measuring 228.95 acres, as certified by the Tahsildar in the RTC Pahani, a portion of which is in the possession of the petitioner eversince the year 1966. 6. Learned Govt. No. 22/2 of Birunani village, said to be government land, measuring 228.95 acres, as certified by the Tahsildar in the RTC Pahani, a portion of which is in the possession of the petitioner eversince the year 1966. 6. Learned Govt. Advocate having secured the records from one G.S. Krishna, In-charge Tahsildar for the past two months, makes available for the scrutiny of the Court the file relating to a report of the earlier Tahsildar, by name Prasanna Kumar, which bears neither date, nor the name, except a scribbling to say that it is a signature certifying that no lands are available for grant in Virajpet taluk. This report ex facie is contrary to the facts noticed supra. The negligence in the discharge of statutory duties by Mr. Prasanna Kumar, the then Tahsildar, cannot be better demonstrated. The quality of discharge of duties of the Revenue Department in the State of Karnataka is abysmally low. The In-charge Tahsildar, by name G.S. Krishna, submits that he has no jurisdiction to prepare and publish the list of lands available for grant and that only a fulltime Tahsildar when posted will have to prepare the list. 7. The state of affairs supra, is reflection of the nature of business transacted by the Revenue Department of the State. The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka is directed to forthwith take action in accordance with law over the negligence in the matter of compliance with Rule (3) of the 'Rules' in the taluk of Virajpet and the failure of the Authorities eversince 1966 to consider petitioner's husband's application for grant of land, in the light of the aforesaid facts and to file a report with the Registrar General by the 31st December, 2015. 8. In the result, a writ of mandamus shall ensue to the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar to prepare and publish the list of lands available for disposal in Virajpet taluk and the villages falling within its jurisdiction in accordance with the "Rules" and ensure consideration of grant of land to the petitioner in terms of the 'Rules', in any event by the last week of February, 2016. Until such time, the Revenue Authorities are directed not to precipitate matter of evicting the petitioner from the land in question. Registry to address a letter enclosing a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary for compliance and report.