IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.44039/2019(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
NAGESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O K.S.PRAKASH @ K.VENKAPPAYYA R/AT VASUKI NILAYA IDIKDU VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 201 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SHRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA) . . . .
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATD 22.08.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri S.Rajashekar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for the State.
2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 22.08.2019(Annexure-A) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District.
3. Shri Rajashekar submitted that lands measuring 3 acres 54 cents and 3 acres 23 cents in Survey Nos.
184/1-A and 183/1-A respectively, situated in Idkidu Village, Bantwala Taluk were granted to petitioner’s grand father namely, K.Venkappayya on 16.01.1959 under the provisions of South Kanara District Lease of Lands for Cashew Cultivation Rules, 1957. The said grant permitted the grantees to seek regularization of land after expiry of 30 year’s lease period. Venkappayya passed away during the year 1994.
5. The properties were partitioned among family members on *22.03.1997 and in the said partition, the properties in question fell to petitioner’s share. Petitioner submitted an application for grant of permanent ownership of the land. After recording his statement and conducting a mahazar the Revenue Inspector submitted, a report to the Tahasildar on 09.07.2001. Since no action was taken by the Revenue officers, petitioner submitted another application on 11.07.2013. The said application was also not considered. Petitioner submitted a reminder dated 03.02.2015. Finally, an endorsement dated 21.02.2015 was issued by respondent No.2 stating that petitioner’s request cannot be considered. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.Ps.No.14050/2016 & 23973/2016. This Court by order dated 11.04.2019, has disposed of the writ petitions by recording thus:
“8. After giving careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going *(corrected vide court order dated 27.01.2020) through the judgments, referred to supra, it may not be appropriate for this Court to take a contradictory stand and to give a finding in the present case contrary to the finding of Division Bench and the learned Single Judge in the said judgments.
9. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order at Annexure–A bearing No.LND(3):CR:23/2013-14/B7/149328/87dated 21.02.2015 is quashed. The 2nd respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District is hereby directed to collect the nominal price at the rate of 300 times the land revenue payable per acre that was prevailing as on the date of grant and issue Permanent Ownership Certificate to the petitioner. The same shall be concluded by the Deputy Commissioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and Permanent Ownership Certificate/Saguvali Chit shall be issued. * 6. After disposal of the writ petitions, petitioner submitted two representations dated 25.05.2019 and 16.07.2019. In response to said representations, the Deputy Commissioner has issued an order as per Annexure-A dated 22.08.2019 directing immediate resumption of land in question. Hence, these writ petitions.
7. Shri Rajashekar further submitted that despite directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.14050/2016, the impugned order has been passed based on the ground that there is violation of one of the lease conditions namely, petitioner has constructed a house and also grown areca nuts.
8. Shri Rajashekar adverted to mahazar drawn by the Revenue Inspector on 09.07.2001(Annexure-D) and report of Tahasildar dated 12.07.2001(Annexure-F) and submitted pointed out that Tahasildar has specifically recorded in paragraph No.5 of his report that 235 trees of cashew nuts were found and thus, there was compliance of terms of lease. He further submitted that despite specific report by the Tahasildar, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order without proper application of mind.
9. Learned AGA argued opposing the petition.
10. Undisputed facts of the case are, by order dated *11th April, 2019 in W.Ps.No.14050/2016 and connected case, this Court has issued specific direction to collect nominal price and to issue permanent ownership certificate. The Tahasildar in his report to the Assistant Commissioner has stated that there is compliance of lease conditions. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable in law.
11. Learned AGA submitted that after the order passed by this Court in W.Ps.No.14050/2016, the Government is in the process of framing certain policy. Therefore, petitioner’s case can be considered only after framing of policy. The said argument of learned AGA is only noted to be rejected for the reason that the State has suffered an order in the hands of this Court in W.P.No.14050/2016 and that order has attained finality.
*(corrected vide court order dated 27.01.2020) 12. In the circumstances, these petitions merit consideration and they are accordingly allowed. The order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, vide Annexure-A is quashed. The State shall take further action pursuant to order dated *11th April 2019 passed by this Court in W.Ps.No.14050/2016 & 23973/2016 within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.
*(corrected vide court order dated 27.01.2020)