IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.46674/2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
R. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O C. RANGANNA R/O MARATIKAYATHANAHALLI JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001.
2 . THE TAHASILDAR MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE – 570 001.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSORE – 570 001.
4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED:19.05.2007 ISSUED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNX-J AND ISSUE A WRIT MANDAMUS TO R-1 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITINER DATED:23.04.2008, 11.11.2009 AND 30.03.2012 VIDE ANNX-KA, K2 & K3 DIRECTING THE R-4 TO GRANT BALANCE OF LAND MEASURING 2 ACRE 22 GUNTAS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN SY. NO.15 SITUATED AT MARATIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN LIEU OF THE LAND LOST BY HIM AFTER DEDUCTING 4 ACRES AND LAND WHICH IS ALREADY GRANTED OUT OF 6 ACRE 22 GUNTAS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents.
2. Petitioner has sought for quashing of endorsement dated 19.05.2019 issued by fourth respondent (Annexure-J) whereunder claim of petitioner for grant of land to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.15 of Maratekyathanahalli, Mysore Taluk has been rejected.
3. It is the contention of Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that respondents being fully conscious of the fact that petitioner has lost the land to an extent of 6 acres 22 guntas in Sy.Nos. 17 & 18 situated at Huskur village, Kandalike Hobli, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysore District, which was acquired for the purpose of Nugu reservoir project, authorities ought to have allotted same extent of land to the petitioner and under the guise of allotting 4 acres of land, respondents cannot shirk from their responsibility of granting an extent of land which petitioner had lost. Hence, he prays for quashing of endorsement dated 19.05.2007 (Annexure-J) and seeks for a direction to first respondent to consider his applications dated 23.04.2008, 11.11.2009 and 30.03.2012 (Annexures-K1, K2 and K3) respectively, whereunder petitioner had sought for grant of land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in his favour.
4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for respondents would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the records, it would clearly disclose that there is no dispute with regard to petitioner having lost land and measuring 6 acres 22 guntas in Sy.Nos.17 & 18 situated at Huskur village, Kandalike Hobli, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysore District, which came to be acquired for the purposes of establishing Nugu Reservoir Project. It is on account of petitioner having lost his land, appropriate Government by Official Memorandum dated 05.08.1992 under Rule 5 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, allotted 4 acres of land in Sy.No.15 of Maratikyathanahalli village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk which land came to be renumbered as Sy.No.199. In fact, said grant was made on account of petitioner having lost the agricultural land which was the livelihood for petitioner. In fact, petitioner has subsequently got converted the said land and has sold the same. Correctness or otherwise of such conversion of land and same having been sold is not the subject matter of this writ petition and as such, no opinion is expressed by this court in that regard.
6. However, claim of the petitioner that entire 6 acres 22 guntas which he owned and had been acquired ought to have been granted and there was shortage of 2 acres 22 guntas and as such, he had been submitting representations for grant of balance land, is an argument which requires to be considered for the purposes of outright rejection, inasmuch as, petitioner has not been able to place on record any material to show that equal extent of land which was acquired was being granted or allotted to displaced persons or person who had lost their agricultural land. Hence, contention raised by learned Advocate appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted.
7. Yet another attempt by learned Advocate appearing for petitioner to contend that report of the Tahsildar which is at Annexure-F which is to the effect that petitioner is in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of land measuring 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.15 and as such, same ought to have been granted to him, also cannot be accepted inasmuch as, petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate before this court either existence of any extant scheme which provides for grant of equal proportion of land which land losers had lost in Nugu Reservoir Project or similarly placed persons having been allotted the extent of land which had been acquired. If at all, petitioner has any claim with reference to 2 acres 35 guntas of his unauthorized cultivation of land in Sy.No.15, it is always open for him to pursue his grievance or claim for grant in appropriate proceedings.
Subject to observations made hereinabove, writ petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE *sp