IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NOs.40981/2015 & 3588-3592/2016(KLR-REG) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
2. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
3. SMT. THIPPAKKA W/O DODDAMUNISHAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
5. SMT. GANGAMMA D/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
6. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O DODDAMUNISHAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHEEMASANDRA VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 129 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOWHAR UNNISA, ADV., ON BEHALF OF SRI. V VISHWANATH SETTY, ADV., ) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203.
(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) ... RESPONDENTS THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO COSNIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED:22.05.1985 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO THE REPRESENTATION DATED:29.04.2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-D FILED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION OF THEIR UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF THE LAND BEARING SY NO.42 MEASURING 02 ACRES EACH (TOTALLY 12 ACRES) OUT OF 192 ACRES 39 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT CHEEMASANDRA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Smt. Gowhar Unnisa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Vishwanath Setty for petitioners and Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners claiming to be in occupation of various lands in Sy.No.42 of Cheemasandra Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, which totally measures 192 acres 39 guntas are contending they have been in occupation of about 2 acres of land each and they have been unauthorizedly cultivating said land. Hence, they are before this Court seeking for a writ of mandamus to respondents to consider their representation dated 22.05.1985 (Annexure-B) and also representation dated 29.04.2014 (Annexure-D), whereunder they have sought for regularization of their alleged unauthorized cultivation of land bearing Sy.No.42 measuring 2 acres each (totally 12 acres).
3. It is the contention of Sri. Gowhar Unnisa, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that petitioners being poor agriculturists and eking out their livelihood by cultivating said land, they are entitled to seek regularization of their unauthorized occupation and cultivation. On account of non consideration of their representation by second respondent, she prays for a writ of mandamus being issued to second respondent to consider said representations.
4. It is not in dispute that petitioners are claiming to be in unauthorized occupation of Government land. Appropriate Government in exercise of power vested under Section 197(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has published “The Karnataka Land Revenue (Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation of Lands) Rules, 1970” (for short “Rules”) in order to grant/allot the lands to landless poor persons and persons who are in unauthorized occupation as referred to under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. A plain reading of Rule 3 would indicate that where a person claims to be in unauthorized occupation of a land desires that such land is to be granted to him/her, has to necessarily submit an application to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner in Form No.1 specifying the details of such land, which is in occupation of the applicant. It is only thereafter that jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner would be required to verify the particulars furnished as prescribed under Rule 4 and then arrive at a conclusion as to whether land should be granted or the application is to be rejected.
5. For consideration of such claim by an applicant, filing of application is sine-qua-non, failing which applicant would not get a right to seek for a writ of mandamus to the authorities to perform statutory duty prescribed under the Act or the extant Rules. In the instant case, as noticed hereinabove and at the cost of repetition, there being no application submitted by the petitioners in Form No.1 and mere submitting memorials or representations, would not part take the characteristic of prescribed application, which should be filed in accordance with Rules, question of issuing of writ of mandamus would not arise. Hence, writ petition stands rejected. However, petitioners would be at liberty to submit application as prescribed in the Rules referred to hereinabove, if they so desire and thereafter approach this Court in the event of such application having not been considered by authorities in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE DR