Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1936 (KAR)

Basamma @ Ratnamma v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-30

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - Heard 2. Admit 3. With the consent of all the counsels the matters are taken up for final disposal. In W.P.No.30417 of 2008 and W.P.No.107937 of 2018: 4. The petitioners in W.P.No.30417 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P.No.107937 of 2018 are before this Court seeking for certiorari to quash the order dated 30.09.2007, passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-H and consequently for a mandamus directing the respondents to allot alternative sites to the petitioners. Further in the alternative, if no alternate sites are available for grant than a direction to be issued to the State to award compensation to the petitioners as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by way of initiating acquisition proceedings. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1. It is alleged that the land bearing Sy.No.30 of Rayapur Village, Dharwad measuring about 133 acres 10 guntas is gomal land, since the said land was not used for any purposes, the Government is stated to have decided to form sites on a portion of the land and distribute the same to needy persons; as also allot a certain portion to public institutions. It is alleged that on the formation of the sites in the said survey number, the portion of the lands were sites were carved was assigned a new survey number in Sy.No.30/2. 5.2. In all, around 54 sites were formed, which were allotted/granted to different persons on 08.01.1963. One of the conditions of the grant was to put up residential house within one year and that there would be no alienation permitted without prior permission of respondent No.3-the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad. 5.3. It is alleged that though the lands were granted in the year 1963, the same was not fit for human dwelling, as there were no civic amenities provided. Therefore, no construction of residential houses could be put up by the grantees during the stipulated period of one year. The grantees having waited for a long period of nearly 15 years and the sites still not having been provided with the civic amenities, they approached the concerned authority, namely respondent No.3-the Assistant Commissioner for granting permission to alienate the sites between the years 1982 to 1985. The original grantees were not informed of the status of the said request, whether it was accepted or rejected. The original grantees were not informed of the status of the said request, whether it was accepted or rejected. However, they presumed that the same was granted and many of them sold their sites under different sale deeds to various purchasers. It is those purchasers, who are before this Court in the present writ petitions. 5.4. Subsequent to the purchase of the said plots by the aforesaid purchasers in the years 1984 and 1985, respondent No.2 is stated to have without providing any opportunity to the petitioners, passed an order in LND/CR/603/1985-86, dated 15.05.1986, forfeiting the lands on account of violation of the conditions of the grant. Aggrieved by the same, the affected persons had preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal mainly on the ground that respondent No.2 had not provided any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the order, the second respondent had no right to cancel the grant in view of Rule 43-G of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. Accepting the said contentions, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is stated to have allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 by its order dated 10.07.1987. In pursuance of the same, mutation entries were carried out in the names of petitioners post the judgment of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 5.5. Subsequently, respondent No.2 has once again recommended to the Divisional Commissioner to cancel the grant made in favour of the original grantees on the ground that the grant conditions have been violated, accepting the said recommendation, the Divisional Commissioner set aside the grant made by respondent No.2, dated 08.01.1963 by his order dated 31.07.2001. Hence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging the said order. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner since he was the granting authority to consider the matter afresh. 5.6. The Assistant Commissioner is stated to have not taken any decision, subsequent to remand. However, the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.3 has proposed to recommend the grant of 24 acres 29 guntas in Sy.No.30/2 of Rayapur Village, Dharwad Taluka to the Karnataka State Law University ("KSLU or University" for short). 5.6. The Assistant Commissioner is stated to have not taken any decision, subsequent to remand. However, the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.3 has proposed to recommend the grant of 24 acres 29 guntas in Sy.No.30/2 of Rayapur Village, Dharwad Taluka to the Karnataka State Law University ("KSLU or University" for short). Based on the said report, the Deputy Commissionerrespondent No.2 vide its order dated 30.09.2007 was pleased to grant 24 acres 29 guntas in the aforesaid land in terms of Section 97(4) of the Land Reforms Act in favour of the KSLU. 5.7. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court stating that the Assistant Commissioner without considering the order of remand passed as per annexure-D, dated 11.03.2004 has recommended the grant of land to KSLU. This being only to frustrate the claims of the petitioners and as such the order of the grant made in favour of the University is bad in law. The rights of the petitioners ought to have been determined as per the directions of remand made by the Appellate Tribunal and hence, they have sought for quashing the grant in favour of the University. In W.P.No.3108 of 2007 and W.P.No.17703 of 2006 6. Brief facts of the case are as under: 6.1. The petitioners in W.P.No.3108 of 2007 and W.P.No.17703 of 2006 are also stated to be the purchasers from grantees. Hence, the facts until the approaching of the petitioners to the Appellate Tribunal is the same. However, the appeals filed by these petitioners were numbered differently and disposed of by a separate order on 12.05.2003. Though the contents and purport of the order is the same as in the earlier writ petitions, there is a divergence of action subsequent to the remand by the Appellate Tribunal in that, post the remand, the Assistant Commissioner has issued a notice on 11.02.2004, calling upon the petitioners in W.P.No.3108 of 2007 and W.P.No.17703 of 2006 to furnish various documents. It is stated that the petitioners have furnished the said documents under their letter dated 03.03.2004. However, the Assistant Commissioner by way of his letter dated 15.05.2005 stating that he has not received the said documents had once again called upon the petitioners to furnish the said documents. 6.2. It is stated that the petitioners have furnished the said documents under their letter dated 03.03.2004. However, the Assistant Commissioner by way of his letter dated 15.05.2005 stating that he has not received the said documents had once again called upon the petitioners to furnish the said documents. 6.2. Having waited for some time, the petitioners approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.3386 of 2006 seeking for a mandamus for expeditious disposal of the matter by the Assistant Commissioner, which was so granted by this Court on 15.03.2006. 6.3. It is alleged that without hearing the petitioners, the Assistant Commissioner vide its order dated 02.09.2006 had held that the petitioners have violated the terms of grant and therefore rejected the application filed by the petitioners and forfeited the lands to the Government. This being contrary to and violative of the principles of natural justice, it is contended that the said order dated 02.09.2006 is required to be quashed by the issuance of certiorari and consequently the petitioners have also sought for mandamus or a direction directing the respondents not to interfere with their possession and permit the petitioners to put up construction on the plots allotted to them. In W.P.No.30005 of 2008: 7. Brief facts of the case are as under: 7.1. One other writ petition in W.P.No.30005 of 2008, makes out a different cause of action. It is stated that the petitioners in W.P.No.30005 of 2008 had made an application under Rule 21 of the Land Grant Rules seeking for grant of land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No.30/2 of Rayapur Village, Dharwad for the purpose of establishment of an Educational Institution by the petitioner. 7.2. On receipt of the said application, the Tahashildar-respondent No.3 in that matter had recommended the proposal to the Deputy Commissioner vide his letter dated 22.01.2005 at Annexure-F. On the said recommendation, the matter was considered by the State Government and the State Government approved the grant of 3 acres 15 guntas to the petitioner vide its letter dated 15.04.2005 at Annexure-H and directed the Deputy Commissioner to do the needful. 7.3. 7.3. The Deputy Commissioner however vide its letter dated 09.01.2006 wrote to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department stating that in view of the prohibition under Section 108(2) of the Land Reform Act, as also on account of the circular dated 24.12.2005, which had in turn been issued pursuant to the direction in W.P.No.14048 of 2005, it may not be possible for grant of land to the petitioner in view of the said circular and the decision of the High Court being in operation. 7.4. The Under Secretary, Revenue Department, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of Principal Secretary, Revenue Department stating that since the grant had been made in favour of the petitioner prior to the judgment being passed in W.P.No.14048 of 2005 and/or prior to the issuance of circular, the same would not affect the grant of lands in favour of the petitioner and as such directed the Deputy Commissioner to go ahead with the grant. 7.5. When no action was taken in regard to the same, the petitioner had approached this Court vide W.P.No.10317 of 2007, which came to be disposed of by this Court on 5th July 2007 on account of the petitioner withdrawing the writ petition, reserving liberty to approach the respondents with his grievances. 7.6. In the meanwhile, on 22.01.2007, the Deputy Commissioner wrote to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department stating that there is a proposal for the establishment of Law University at Hubballi-Dharwad under consideration by the Government. The land in Sy.No.30 has been inspected and demarked since this land is proposed to be given to the Law University, which is a greater public purpose, it may not be possible to grant the said land to the petitioner. It is on this basis, the writ petition No.10317 of 2007 was filed. 7.7. The petitioners subsequently gave a representation to the respondents and aggrieved by the non-consideration thereof had once again approached this Court in W.P.No.11667 of 2007 for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation. This Court allowed the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners vide its order dated 30.07.2007 in W.P.No.11667 of 2007. 7.8. This Court allowed the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners vide its order dated 30.07.2007 in W.P.No.11667 of 2007. 7.8. The Deputy Commissioner on 08.10.2007 vide annexure-E wrote to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department informing him that the land measuring 24 acres 29 guntas have been allotted to the KSLU and therefore, there was no possibility of granting the land measuring 3 acre 15 guntas to the petitioner. 7.9. The Principal Secretary, vide its letter dated 11.12.2007, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner rescinding the order dated 04.09.2006 by virtue of which it had permitted the grant of land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the Deputy Commissioner rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of land vide its order dated 28.12.2007 at annexure-Z. It is aggrieved by these two orders; the petitioner is before this Court seeking for certiorari to quash the communication issued by the Principal Secretary to the Deputy Commissioner dated 11.12.2007 at annexure- Y, as also communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioner dated 28.12.2007 vide annexure-Z and the order passed by the second respondent dated 30.09.2007, granting the land in favour of the Law University at Annexure-AA and consequently sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant land measuring 3 acres 15 gunts in Rayapur Village, Dharwad in favour of the petitioner. SUBMISSIONS: In W.P.No.30417/2008 & W.P.No.107937/ 2018 8. Shri F.V. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.30417 of 2008 and W.P.No.107937 of 2018 reiterating the contents of the petition as detailed above submitted that 8.1. the petitioners continue to be in actual, physical possession and occupation as on today, despite which the authorities have acted in a manner not known to law. 8.2. All the authorities have passed the order behind the back of the petitioners. Petitioners being small landowners, their interest is adversely affected, and the grant made in favour of the University is improper. 8.3. The said grant is required to be quashed and the forfeiture of land belonging to the petitioner also needs to be quashed permitting the petitioners to continue to be in occupation, enjoyment and ownership of their respective plots. In W.P.No.3108/2007 & W.P.No.17703/2006: 9. 8.3. The said grant is required to be quashed and the forfeiture of land belonging to the petitioner also needs to be quashed permitting the petitioners to continue to be in occupation, enjoyment and ownership of their respective plots. In W.P.No.3108/2007 & W.P.No.17703/2006: 9. Shri Shivakumar S.Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.3108 of 2007 and W.P.No.17703 of 2006 reiterating the statement made in the petitions as also the submission made by Shri F.V. Patil would contend that 9.1. the Assistant Commissioner having issued a notice to the petitioners on 11.02.2004, the petitioners have replied to the same and furnished all the documents, despite which, the said documents were not considered and the impugned order dated 23.03.2005 has been passed by the respondents contending as if the petitioners had not submitted the documents. 9.2. The documents, which had been filed before the Assistant Commissioner have also been filed before this Court under a separate application, which would establish the bonafides of the petitioners. 9.3. That the action taken by the third respondentthe Assistant Commissioner is after a long lapse of time, even if it was presumed that there was any violation on the part of the petitioners, any action ought to have been taken within a reasonable period of time. Even according to the respondents, the time period by which the construction was to be completed is either one year or two year. The grant having been made in the year 1963 and the construction was to be completed by 1965, a reasonable time for the State to take any action could have been at the most by the year 1970. But the first time, the action was taken was in the year 1987, that too after the original grantee had sought for permission to alienate the property. Thus, the action taken by respondents are arbitrary and fraud on power. In W.P.No.30005/2008: 10. Shri Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.30005 of 2008 would submit that 10.1. The application for grant of land was made by the petitioners way back in the year 2005 and the same came to be considered and recommended by the Tahsildar on 22.01.2005, approved by the Deputy Commissioner put up before the State Government and the State Government approved the same on 15.04.2005. 10.2. The application for grant of land was made by the petitioners way back in the year 2005 and the same came to be considered and recommended by the Tahsildar on 22.01.2005, approved by the Deputy Commissioner put up before the State Government and the State Government approved the same on 15.04.2005. 10.2. It is only on account of certain technical issues that the grant could not be confirmed as the Deputy Commissioner had sought for clarification from the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department as regards applicability of the circular dated 24.12.2005, which was clarified in the negative by the Principal Secretary stating that the said circular would not be applicable leaving no further room or doubt as regards the grant of land in favour of the petitioners. 10.3. Despite the above the authorities delayed the matter and have acted prejudicially in favour of the Law University by allotting the land, measuring 24 acres 29 guntas. 10.4. The application made by the petitioners being first in point of time as also approved prior to the approval in favour of the Law University the land measuring 3 acre 15 guntas ought to be granted in favour of the petitioner. 10.5. The petitioner has been prosecuting the said matter from the year 2005 till rejection in the year 2007, the actions on the part of the petitioner have been bonafide and the petitioner wants to establish an institution in the said land. It is only on account of the malafide action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has not been able to do the same and in this background, he submits that the prayer sought for the petitioner needs to be allowed. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY 11. Shri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for KSLU i.e., respondent No.5 in W.P.No.107937 of 2018 and W.P.No.30417 of 2008 and respondent No.4 in W.P.No.30005 of 2008 would submit that; 11.1. the proposal to establish Law University was moved by the Government, the area was chosen by the Government, the land was identified by the Government and allotted to the University. 11.2. Shri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for KSLU i.e., respondent No.5 in W.P.No.107937 of 2018 and W.P.No.30417 of 2008 and respondent No.4 in W.P.No.30005 of 2008 would submit that; 11.1. the proposal to establish Law University was moved by the Government, the area was chosen by the Government, the land was identified by the Government and allotted to the University. 11.2. Subsequent to such allotment, the University has apart from the land granted to it, purchased nearly another six acres of land from the Corporation, has received further grant of land measuring 19 acres from the Government and as on today, the Law University is in possession, occupation and enjoyment of nearly around 54 of acres of land. 11.3. The land has been put to public use. There are number of students, who are studying in the Law School, which is established therein; there are numerous professors teaching; a number of people are employed at the Law University. The Law University has overall jurisdiction of Law Schools and Law Colleges in the State of Karnataka and administers over 106 Law Colleges, for which there is a separate staff. The entire operations of the University are conducted at this campus, the land having been put to use, the construction having been completed, the possession, occupation, enjoyment as also ownership of the Law University ought not be disturbed. 11.4. The University has not been concerned with and was not aware of any of the claims made in any of the writ petitions be it as a grantee of the site or an organization seeking for grant of land for the purpose of establishment of its own Institution. The University has acted in all bonafides and has performed all duties that it is required to, it has complied with the terms of the grant made in favour of the Law University and in this background he submits that the writ petitions insofar as they are challenging the grant in favour of the Law University cannot be allowed. He states that he would be unable to make any submissions on the alternative relief sought for and his submissions are only restricted to the relief claimed insofar as it adversely affects the rights of the Law University. STATE GOVERNMENT 12. Smt. Vidyavathi Kotturshettar, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that 12.1. He states that he would be unable to make any submissions on the alternative relief sought for and his submissions are only restricted to the relief claimed insofar as it adversely affects the rights of the Law University. STATE GOVERNMENT 12. Smt. Vidyavathi Kotturshettar, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that 12.1. No doubt 5 acres 4 guntas, which had been allotted by forming sites in the year 1963 is froms part of the land allotted to the Karnataka State Law University, but however the writ petitions as filed are not maintainable. 12.2. That the petitioners have no locus to file the present petitions in W.P.NO.107937/2018, W.P.Nos.3108/2007, WP 17703/2006, and W.P.No.30417 of 2008, the petitioners therein are the subsequent purchasers from the original allottees of the plots in the year 1963. 12.3. The plots having been allotted to the land less persons for the purpose of construction of their homes, it was not permissible for those persons to sell it to the petitioners and/or for the petitioners after having purchased the same in violation of the conditions of such grant to challenge the same. 12.4. That the alleged permission relied upon for having purchased the property is not one granted by the Deputy Commissioner, but is one issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner of the Urban Land Ceiling Department under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. Therefore, that permission cannot be equated to that of permission to alienate in terms of the conditions of grant made to the original grantee, which permission has to be in accordance with the Land Grants Rules. 12.5. Subsequent to the remand by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 11.03.2004, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order on 02.09.2006, the petitioners therefore ought to have challenged the said order before the appropriate authority namely the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and not rushed to this Court. The hierarchy of the Court not having been followed, the petitioners having alternative and efficacious remedy, the present writ petitions cannot be entertained. 12.6. That the petitioners in W.P.No.107937/2018. W.P.No.3108/2007, W.P.No.17703/2006 and W.P.No.30417/2008 are all subsequent purchasers. 12.7. Admittedly there is no construction, which has been carried out on the property, as also no permission for sale or purchase obtained from the Deputy Commissioner. 12.6. That the petitioners in W.P.No.107937/2018. W.P.No.3108/2007, W.P.No.17703/2006 and W.P.No.30417/2008 are all subsequent purchasers. 12.7. Admittedly there is no construction, which has been carried out on the property, as also no permission for sale or purchase obtained from the Deputy Commissioner. It is therefore now not permissible for the petitioners to challenge the same before this Court, since admittedly there is a violation of the said condition. 12.8. The petitioners, though have been given more than enough opportunity, have not been able to satisfy the compliance of the said conditions and as such the petitioners are not entitled to plead any defence before this Court. 12.9. As regards the petitioners in W.P.No.30005/2008, wherein the petitioner had sought for allotment of 3 acres 15 gunta of land for the purpose of setting up of an Institution, she submits that there is no land which is available and since there was a greater public purpose, which could be served by the allotment of lands to the Karnataka State Law University, which is a Premier University, in charge of all the Law Colleges in the State of Karnataka. The State was of the opinion that the greater public good would be better achieved by allotting the land to the Karnataka State Law University rather than the private enterprise, like that of the petitioner in W.P.No.30005/2008. 12.10. This action on the part of the State cannot, therefore, be faulted with, the State is unable to allot any other land to the said petitioner on account of the orders passed by this Court in various decisions, where this Court has categorically made it clear that the Government land cannot be allotted to a private enterprise or a private individual for any private purposes. There being a bar on such allotment, the State is unable to grant any land to the said petitioner in W.P.No.30005/2008. 12.11. There was no final approval of grant of land to the said petitioner inasmuch as it was only at the proposal stage, which was under consideration, a department had recommended the grant in favour of the said petitioner, it not having attained finality and the final approval not having been issued. The State was within its right to cancel the prior recommendation since it had not reached the approval stage and subsequently it was cancelled on 11.12.2007. 13. The State was within its right to cancel the prior recommendation since it had not reached the approval stage and subsequently it was cancelled on 11.12.2007. 13. Heard Shri F.V. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.30417/2008 and W.P.No.107937/2018; Shri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3108/2007 and W.P.No.17703/2006; Shri Mallikarjun C.Basareddy for petitioner in W.P.No.30005/2008; Shri K.L.Patil on behalf of Shri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.107937/2018; Shri K.L. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos.30005/2008 and respondent No.5 in W.P.No.30417/2008, Smt. Vidyavati Kotturshettar, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State in all the above matters. 14. The points that arise for determination by this Court are as under: (i) Whether the petitioners in W.P.Nos.107937/2018, 3108/2007, 17703/2006 and 30417/2008 have the locus to challenge the allotment of lands made in favour of the Karnataka Law University? (ii) Whether the petitioners in W.P.Nos.107937/2018, 3108/2007 and 17703/2006 could approach this Court without exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal? (iii) Whether the respondents could initiate action for forfeiture and/or resumption of land belonging to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.107937/2018, 3108/2007, 17703/2006 and 30417/2008 after long lapse of time? (iv) Whether the respondents could have allotted the land to the Law University without making enquiry post the remand of the matter by the KAT vide its order dated 10.07.1987? (v) Whether the approval of the grant made in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.30005/2008 could be cancelled on account of achieving greater public good by granting the said land in favour of the Law University without allotting an alternate land? (vi) Whether the petitioner in W.P.No30005/2008 can claim a vested right for allotment of land merely on account of the recommendation made for allotment of land in his favour? (vii) What order? 15. I answer point No. (i) as under: Whether the petitioners in W.P.Nos.107937/2018, 3108/2007, 17703/2006 and 30417/2008 have locus to challenge the allotment of lands made in favour of the Karnataka State Law University? 15.1. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions are stated to be the purchasers of the land. The right of the State to forfeit the lands after cancellation of the grant is yet to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner, subsequent to the remand by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 15.1. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions are stated to be the purchasers of the land. The right of the State to forfeit the lands after cancellation of the grant is yet to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner, subsequent to the remand by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Such being the case, the authorities themselves having recognized the interest of the petitioners in the land by cancelling the grant and forfeiting it in favour of the Government, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners would have a locus to challenge the allotment of lands alleged to be owned by them in favour of the KSLU. 16. I answer point No. (ii) as under: Whether the petitioners in W.P.Nos.107937/2018, 3108/2007 and 17703/2006 could approach this Court without exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal? 16.1. As observed above, insofar as the petitioners in the above petitions are concerned, on the remand made by the Appellate Tribunal to the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner has held in favour of the State and negatived the contentions of the petitioners. Thus, the land is vested with the State Government subsequent to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The hierarchy of courts requires that the petitioners approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, in the present fact situation since not only the lands are forfeited, but the land at that time being proposed to be granted was granted in favour of the KSLU, the remedy before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in my considered opinion would not be an alternative efficacious remedy. In view of the same I hold that the filing of the writ petitions is maintainable and those issues could be adjudicated in the present writ petition. 17. I answer point No. (iii) as under: Whether the respondents could initiate action for forfeiture and/or resumption of land belonging to the petitioners in W.P.Nos.107937/2018, 3108/2007, 17703/2006 and 30417/2018 after long lapse of time? 17.1. The lands in Survey No.30 of Rayapur village, Dharwad measuring 133 acres 10 guntas were gomal lands. A portion of the said land was carved out into survey No.30/2. It is in this portion of survey No.30/2, that 54 sites were formed and granted to different persons on 08.01.1963. 17.2. 17.1. The lands in Survey No.30 of Rayapur village, Dharwad measuring 133 acres 10 guntas were gomal lands. A portion of the said land was carved out into survey No.30/2. It is in this portion of survey No.30/2, that 54 sites were formed and granted to different persons on 08.01.1963. 17.2. Two of the conditions relevant for this matter of such grant are that, the construction of a residential house was to be made within a period of one or two years (depending on the version of the petitioner/State Government) of such grant i.e. to say the grant having been made on 08.01.1963, the construction was to be completed at the most by 08.01.1965. 17.3. Admittedly, there is no construction which has been put up on the said plots even as on today. Thus there is a clear violation of the said condition. The reasons ascribed for the same by the petitioners is that, there is no civic amenities available in the said land and in the absence thereof the grantees of the land could not make use of the said land and put up construction since the land itself was not habitable. Be that as it may, the fact is that the said grantees did not seek for extension of time from the authorities concerned. 17.4. The second condition is that the grantees were prohibited from alienating/transferring the plots allotted to the grantee without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner. 17.5. On the ground that the land was not habitable, the grantees are alleged to have sold their granted land from the year 1982- 85 needless to say prior to such sale the necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner has not been taken. Thus the purchasers were and are knowledgable about the terms of the grant, ought to have understood the implications thereof are deemed to be aware of the terms and implications thereof. It is at this stage that, on 15.05.1986, the second respondent the Deputy Commissioner is stated to have passed an order forfeiting the lands in favour of the Government on account of the violation of the conditional grant. 17.6. Sri. F.V.Patil, learned counsel and Sri. It is at this stage that, on 15.05.1986, the second respondent the Deputy Commissioner is stated to have passed an order forfeiting the lands in favour of the Government on account of the violation of the conditional grant. 17.6. Sri. F.V.Patil, learned counsel and Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel submitted that the violations having occurred in the year 1965, the action taken in the year 1985 was not within a reasonable time and delay is also said to be unreasonable and therefore, the action taken by the second respondent in cancelling the land was impermissible. However, what is to be seen here is that the sale of the plots has occurred in between the year 1982-85. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is dated 15.05.1986. 17.7. It is the violation of this condition of the nonalienation, which goes to the root of the matter and as such I am of the considered opinion that the action initiated in the year 1986 is within a reasonable period of time. Be that as it may, the same came to be challenged by the petitioners before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner after setting aside his earlier order for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Divisional Commissioner accepting the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner set aside the grant made by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner dated 08.01.1963 by way of his order dated 31.07.2001. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have once again approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to consider the matter afresh. 17.8. In W.P.No.30417/2008 and W.P.No.107937/2018, there is no order passed by the said Assistant Commissioner. However, in W.P.No.3108/2007 and W.P.No.17703/2006, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order on 02.09.2006 holding that the petitioners had violated the terms of the grant and therefore rejected the application filed by the petitioners. 17.9. Thus, insofar as the petitioner in W.P.Nos.3108/2007 and 17703/2006, the Assistant Commissioner having considered the violation of the grant by the petitioners therein has come to a right conclusion that the lands are required to be forfeited, I find no error in the said order. The petitioners have not been able to point out any error, the fact remains that the construction was to be completed within two years, which has not been done. The petitioners have not been able to point out any error, the fact remains that the construction was to be completed within two years, which has not been done. So also the alienation of the sites has been done without obtaining proper permission. Hence, insofar as these lands are concerned, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner being proper and subsequent recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner to allot the said land to the Karnataka Law Univeristy is proper. 17.10. Now, the question would be whether without the Assistant Commissioner passing orders on the basis of the remand made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner/ Divisional Commissioner could forfeit the lands. The answer to this question in my opinion could be no. Neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the Divisional Commissioner could exercise jurisdiction over the matter until a decision was rendered by the Assistant Commissioner in the pending matter. The Deputy Commissioner/Divisional Commissioner could not short circuit the process of adjudication. Be that as it may, the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Divisional Commissioner had been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal and remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Hence, the land continued to be in the name of the petitioners, the land was not vested with the State and as such, the State could not have dealt with that land. 18. I answer point No. (iv) as under: Whether the respondents could have allotted the land to the Law University without making enquiry post the remand of the matter by the KAT vide its order dated 10.07.1987? 18.1. The Assistant Commissioner not having passed the order, the property continued to be vested with the petitioners, the respondent could not have granted the land to the Karnataka State Law University without the adjudication of the matter. In fact, the first respondent does not have any right to be exercised in respect of the said land. 18.2. Only a portion of the land where the Assistant Commissioner had passed an order dated 02.09.2006 i.e. as regards the lands covered under the ownership of the petitioners in W.P.No.3108/2007 and W.P.No.17703/2006 would come within the jurisdiction of the first respondent to be granted in favour of the Karnataka State Law University. 18.2. Only a portion of the land where the Assistant Commissioner had passed an order dated 02.09.2006 i.e. as regards the lands covered under the ownership of the petitioners in W.P.No.3108/2007 and W.P.No.17703/2006 would come within the jurisdiction of the first respondent to be granted in favour of the Karnataka State Law University. However, the validity of the said order of the Assistant Commissioner is under challenge in W.P.No.3108/2007 and W.P.No.17703/2006, such being the case, the question of granting the same by the order dated 30.09.2007 would not at all arise. 19. I answer Point No.(v) & (vi) which are connected as under: (v) Whether the approval of the grant made in favour of the petitioners in W.P.No.30005/2008 could be cancelled on account of achieving greater public good by granting the said land in favour of the Law University without allotting an alternate land? And (vi) Whether the petitioner in W.P.No.30005/2008 can claim a vested right for allotment of land merely on account of the recommendation made for allotment of land in his favour? 19.1. The petitioner in W.P.No.30005/2008 wanting to establish an educational institution had approached the first respondent seeking for grant of 3 acres 15 guntas in the aforesaid land covered under Survey No.30/2. 19.2. The said request had been considered by the Tahashildar and recommended by him to the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 22.01.2005 who in turn recommended the same to the first respondent vide letter dated 15.04.2005 and the first respondent had approved the grant in favour of the petitioner vide its letter dated 15.04.2005 and directed the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner to do the needful. 19.3. On a doubt arising as to whether the grant could be made to a private party in view of the prohibition under Section 108(2) of the Land Reforms Act, on account of the circular dated 24.12.2005, the Deputy Commissioner wrote to the first respondent seeking for such clarification when the Under Secretary, Revenue Department replied stating that the approval of the grant having been made by the State Government on 15.04.2005 and circular having come into effect on 24.12.2005, the circular would not apply to the case of the petitioner and as such the directed the Deputy Commissioner to go ahead with the grant in favour of the petitioner. 19.4. 19.4. It is at this stage that, the second respondent allotted the land measuring 24 acres 24 guntas to the Karnataka State Law University and informed the first respondent-Principal Secretary of the same and in pursuance thereto, the first respondent directed the Deputy Commissioner to reject the request of the petitioner which was so done on 28.12.2007. 19.5. Considering that the petitioner had been prosecuting his application, following up of the same and had been time and again requesting the respondents to make available the land for the purpose of establishment of an Educational Institution, the respondents are estopped from acting to the contrary thereto since the petitioner has on the basis of the representation made, and approval of the recommendation for grant of land changed the position to its detriment if not for the representations as contended by Sri.Basareddy, learned counsel, the petitioner could have either brought or taken some other land instead of wasting its time on follow up with the Government. 19.6. The respondent cannot after having held out that the land would be granted in favour of the petitioner back track on the same and contend that a greater public interest would be served if the land were allotted to the Karnataka State Law University. Once an action has been taken the supervening circumstance cannot be ground for an excuse for the respondent-State to rescind from its previous commitment. A defense of that kind if permitted could lead to various anomalous situations which is not permissible. 19.7. Such being the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is a vested right created in favour of the petitioners for grant of the land as recommended by the Deputy Commissioner and approved by the Principal Secretary. However, considering that there is no land which is available in Survey No.30/2 for allotment, the same having already been put to use by KSLU, the interest of the petitioner would be safeguarded by directing the respondents to allot land measuring 3 acres 15 guntas at such other place as may be available which location and other amenities are similar to that of the land covered under Survey No.30/2 in the year 2006. 20. I answer Point No.(vii) as under: (vii) WHAT ORDER: IN W.P.Nos.30417/2008 and 107937/2018: 20.1. 20. I answer Point No.(vii) as under: (vii) WHAT ORDER: IN W.P.Nos.30417/2008 and 107937/2018: 20.1. In these matters, though the Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner has not passed any orders thereon. Instead of so doing, the land has already been granted in favour of the University on the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner. Once the appellate tribunal had set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and remaded the matter, the petitioners in these matters continued to be the owners of the property and as such the respondents could not have granted/allotted the lands to the University, since there is no right to do so. In view thereof the grant/allotment of the land subject matter of these Writ Petitions to the Univestiy would be required to be set aside. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case where the said land has been put to use and forms a part of the larger campus of the University measuring about 54 acres, it would not be in the greater public interest to do so. 20.2. The petitioners have sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to allot alternate sites or if no alternate sites are available, to award compensation to the petitioners. Even for determination of the same, it is required to ascertain if at all there is any violation committed by the petitioners of the allotment for this limited purpose, the Assistant Commissioner is directed to take up the matter and pass necessary orders on merits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20.3. In the final result, if it is found that the petitioners have violated the grant, then they would not be entitled either for alternate sites or compensation. However, if the final finding were to be that they have not violated the terms of the grant, then in that event, the respondents are directed to either allot alternate sites if available and if not to award compensation to the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act. IN W.P.Nos.3108/2007 and 17703/2006 20.4. In these matters, subsequent to the remand by the Appellate Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner vide its order dated 02.09.2006 held that the petitioners have violated the terms of grant and forfeited the lands of the petitioners. IN W.P.Nos.3108/2007 and 17703/2006 20.4. In these matters, subsequent to the remand by the Appellate Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner vide its order dated 02.09.2006 held that the petitioners have violated the terms of grant and forfeited the lands of the petitioners. The said order ought to have been challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which has not been done. But have approached this Court having considered that the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal would not be an efficacious remedy, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been examined, I find the order to be proper and in accordance with law not requiring any interference. Thus, the writ petition Nos.3108/2007 and 17703/2006 are dismissed. IN W.P.No.30005/2007: 20.5. The respondents-State having held out and promised to allot 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No.30/2 of Rayapur Village, Dharwad for the purposes of establishment of an Educational Institution by the petitioner in the said writ petition. The only formalities of allotment remaining, however, the said lands having been allotted to the University and forming a part of the larger campus of about 54 acres, it would not be possible to grant such land from and out of the lands allotted/granted to the University. The respondents are therefore directed to allot suitable alternate land to the petitioner in W.P.No.30005/2008 situate similar to the lands in Rayapur Village having similar amenities as in the year 2006 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 21. In the result; (a) W.P.No.30417/2008 and W.P.No. 107937/2018 are partly allowed. (b) W.P.No.3108/2007 and W.P.No. 17703/2006 are dismissed. (c) W.P.No.30005/2008 is partly allowed.