Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 518 (KAR)

A. P. Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka

2016-07-05

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI

body2016
ORDER : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. The petitioners have called into question two identical endorsements both, dated 12-12-2014 (Annexures-A and B) issued by the Tahsildar stating that there is no scope for considering the petitioners' applications for regularisation of their unauthorised occupation of the land in question, as they fall within 18 kilometers from BBMP limits. 2. Sri Chithappa, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners submitted Form 50 application for the regularisation of their unauthorised occupation in 1991 and that the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation of Land, Bangalore North (Additional) had resolved in its meeting held on 24-9-1994 (Annexure-E) to regularise their unauthorised occupation. 3. Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that as the land in question falls within the forbidden radius, the petitioners' unauthorised occupation cannot be regularised. 4. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The Tahsildar cannot sit in judgment over the decisions of the Committee for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation. He is obliged to operationalise the Committee's resolution. The provisions contained in Rule 108-D(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 read as follows: "108-D. Procedure of the Committee.- .................. (3) On such recommendations, the Tahsildar, who shall be the Secretary of the Committee or the Additional Committee, as the case may be, shall, issue an order of grant and issue certificate of grant or saguvali chit in Form VII specified under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, or dismiss the application, as the case may be." 5. Further, Section 94-A(6)(a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 also makes it incumbent upon the Tahsildar to issue the order of grant on the recommendations of the said Committee. The provisions contained therein read as follows: "94-A. Regularisation of certain cases of unauthorised occupation by constituting Committee etc.-............. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in tire preceding sub-section.- (a) The Tahsildar concerned shall issue the order of grant of land, on the recommendations of the Committee or Additional Committee, as the case may be, if any and issue the Saguvali Chit. The amount payable, if any, shall be paid in three equal instalments of which the first one shall be paid before the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order of grant and the remaining two within such period as may be prescribed." 6. The amount payable, if any, shall be paid in three equal instalments of which the first one shall be paid before the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of communication of the order of grant and the remaining two within such period as may be prescribed." 6. The perusal of the afore-extracted provisions clearly indicate that the Tahsildar has no discretion or option in the matter. If the Committee has passed the resolution for regularising the unauthorised occupation in violation of any Rule, the remedy open to the Tahsildar is to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. But in any case, and under any circumstances, he cannot sit in judgment over the resolutions of the Committee of which he himself is the Member Secretary. There is no provision either in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act or Land Revenue Rules giving him the power to withhold any resolution passed by the Committee. 7. It is also profitable to refer to this Court's decision in the case of Rama Nuik v. The Deputy Commissioner, and Others ILR 2007 Kar. 1521, wherein it is held that issuance of the saguvali chit is only incidental to the granting of the land. 8. The next question that falls for my consideration is whether the application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation has to be examined with reference to the rules which were prevailing at that time or as per the subsequent amendment to law? 9. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication is made to have retrospective application. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to showed that the intention of the Legislature is to affect the existence of rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. In the absence of anything in the enactment to showed that it is to have retrospective operation the amendment cannot take away or impair a vested right acquired under existing law or attach a new disability. In the instant case, admittedly, the application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation was made in 1991. In 1991 there was no prohibition in granting the land or in regularising the unauthorised occupation within 18 kms. from the limits of the B.B.M.P. This prohibition is introduced subsequent to the filing of the application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation. 10. In the instant case, admittedly, the application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation was made in 1991. In 1991 there was no prohibition in granting the land or in regularising the unauthorised occupation within 18 kms. from the limits of the B.B.M.P. This prohibition is introduced subsequent to the filing of the application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation. 10. It is also to be noticed that when the petitioners made the application, the applicable local body in existence was Bangalore City' Corporation. Subsequently, it was reorganised. Tire territory of the said local body was enlarged by adding a number of villages and by creating the B.B.M.P. The subsequent reorganisation of the local body cannot militate against the claim of the petitioners for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, allow these petitions by directed the Tahsildar to issue the grant order and the saguvali chit on such terms as are permissible in law. This shall be done within an outer limit of four months from the date of the production of the certified copy of today's order. However, it is also made clear that if the resolution passed by the Committee is in violation of any law, it shall be open to the Tahsildar to challenge the same by way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. If the Tahsildar files one such appeal it shall also be open to the petitioners to resist the same by taking such defences as are permissible in law. 12. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.