IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.8697 OF 2010(KLR-LG) BETWEEN:
THE SECRETARY JYOTHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, VINOBANAGARA, NEAR SANITORIUM HOSPITAL, BANGARPET ROAD, KOLAR – 563 101. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.NARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR.
3. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, BASAVANATTA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
4. SRI APPOJAPPA S/O LATE DODDAMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT GAJALADINNE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, 5. SRI K.NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE DODDANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT:GARDEN HOUSE, BASAVANATTA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK.
6. SRI M.NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE KARI AJJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVANATTA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK.
7. SRI SRIRAMAPPA S/O TRALI MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR SANITORIUM HOSPITAL, KOLAR TALUK. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTHESH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI K.SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.LEX JUSTICIA, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R5 TO R7 R4 IS DECEASED) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 20.11.2009 IN APPEAL NO.884 OF 2004 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The plea of the petitioner is that it is running educational institutions in Kolar town. They sought for grant of lands for societal purposes. By the Government order dated 02.01.2003, 10 acres of land was granted in survey No.62, of Basavanatta Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk, under Rule-21 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. Possession was also handed over. Thereafter, the extent of the land was partially reduced by the order of the Deputy Commissioner for formation of a road. 1½ years thereafter, respondent nos. 2 to 6 approached the Revenue Appellate Tribunal questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner granting land to the petitioner. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the same and set- aside the order of grant. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the grant has been made by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance to the report of the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has reported that the land is capable of being granted to the petitioner, since there is no cultivation of the land. That even though the land is identified as “halla, - tank bed area”, since there is no rain, there is no water in the tank bed. Therefore, the land could be granted.
3. The Tribunal negated the contention of the writ petition and was of the view that admittedly and even in terms of the records maintained by the State, the land in question is a tank bed area and grant of the same is prohibited under Rules-108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the land is granted, the same cannot be questioned. Even otherwise, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal has not been explained.
5. Heard learned counsels.
6. So far as the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is concerned, there is a delay of 1½ years. The petitioners before the Tribunal are villagers. Their only intention is to save the village tank and they have no personal interest in the matter. Moreover, sufficient cause has been shown, which has been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, I find no ground to negate the order of the Tribunal, so far as the delay is concerned.
7. On merits, admittedly, even according to the petitioner, the land in question has been shown as a tank bed area. Under Rules-108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, grant of such land is prohibited rules. Only because the Tahsildar has granted the said land, it cannot override statute. The reasoning assigned by the Tahsildar that there are no rains and shrubs are grown in the land cannot be accepted. This order runs opposite to the provisions of law. Therefore, by accepting such a report, the Deputy Commissioner has faulted.
8. The Tribunal has rightly considered the material and revenue records. Tank bed area cannot be granted. I find no ground to interfere in the well- considered order of the Tribunal. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Rule discharged.
SD/- JUDGE JJ