Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 505 (KAR)

Satish v. Deputy. Commissioner Bagalkot

2015-04-29

B.S.PATIL, P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : These writ appeals arise out of a common order passed in Writ Petition Nos.81196, 81197 & 81198 of 2013 disposed of on 08.08.2013. In the writ petitions, the petitioners had assailed Annexure - E communication dated 04.06.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot informing the writ petitioners that the request made by the petitioners for grant of alluvial land, abutting their lands was liable to be rejected in view of the Government circular bearing No.RD 100 LGB 94 DATED 14/09/1994. 2. The communication impugned in the writ petitions further makes it clear that the Government order prohibited any regularisation of illegal encroachment and illegal cultivation of tank bed and river bed, hence, request made by the writ petitioners could not be granted. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions. 3. In paragraph 8 of the order, the learned Single Judge has stated that by way of policy decision, the State has resolved that such lands should not be allotted. Section 81 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) would empower the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of such alluvial lands, subject to provisions of Section 92 of the Act and therefore, in view of the decision taken by the State not to allot or grant alluvial land situated on the tank bed or river bed, the Court would not have interfered with the policy decision taken by the State. While dismissing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has further observed that in the event the alluvial land were to be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner as per the provisions of the Act. It would be needless to state that respondents would embark upon such an exercise keeping in mind Sections 81 and 92 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the lands which are sought for being granted does not form part of either tank bed or the river bed. He submits that it would fall within the definition of alluvial land which has been added to the land of the writ petitioners due to change of course of the river. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the lands which are sought for being granted does not form part of either tank bed or the river bed. He submits that it would fall within the definition of alluvial land which has been added to the land of the writ petitioners due to change of course of the river. He also points out that the circular referred to in the impugned communication issued by the State Government has no application to the case on hand and that the authorities have to take action strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 81 read with Section 92 of the Act. It is also contended by him that without providing an opportunity to the writ petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner has issued such an endorsement holding that the circular of the Government was applicable to the case and therefore, the application filed by the writ petitioners was liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned Government Advocate submits that the matter has to be examined in the light of Sections 81 and 92 of the Act and the Government circular which relates to tank beds and river beds will have no application for grant of alluvial land, where the land owners have sought for grant of such lands, as adjoining owners claiming the benefit of addition to his land by virtue of change in the course of the river or stream. 6. Section 81 makes it clear that notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary all alluvial lands, newly formed islands, abandoned river-beds shall vest in the State Government, but the holder or occupant 01 the bank or shore on which such alluvial land is formed, shall be entitled to the temporary use thereof, unless and until the area of the same exceeds one acre, in which case such land, island or river-bed shall be at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner, subject to the provisions of Section 92. 7. Section 92 makes it clear that any alluvial land, which vests under Section 81 in the State Government: may, with due regard to the interest of the public revenue, be disposed of, he shall offer such land to the holder or occupant, if any, of the bank or shore on which such alluvial land was formed. There are certain conditions for effecting such grant. There are certain conditions for effecting such grant. Therefore, if the petitioners are nor the encroachers on the tank bed or river bed and are claiming the grant of lands as alluvial lands, abutting their lands, as a result of change of course of the river, then the matter has to be examined in accordance with these provisions by the Deputy Commissioner and not on the basis of the circular issued by the State Government. 8. Learned Government Advocate at this stage submits that the Deputy Commissioner is seized of the matters and he has already issued notices to the parties including other interested persons. If that is so, the matters have to be decided on merits after hearing the concerned parties, keeping in mind the provisions of Sections 81 and 92 of the Act making this position clear, these writ appeals are disposed of by modifying the orders passed by the learned Single Judge to this extent. The Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of the applications expeditiously at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.