IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 03rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.724 OF 2018 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN:
SRI. D.V. PRADEEP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SON OF SRI VENKATAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT NO.158, PARWATAPURA ROAD, MARALUBAGILU, DEVENAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI V. K. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION BENGALURU-560 009.
3 . THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI-562 110.
4. M. MUNIRAJU SON OF NOT KNOWN MAJOR RESIDING AT MARALUVBAGILU, DEVANAHALLI TOWN-562 110.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T.L., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3;
SRI LAKSHMINRAYAN N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET – ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13/12/2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.3158 OF 2010[KLR – RES] BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 13.12.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.3158 of 2010, dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was granted the land in question by the Akrama-Sakrama Regularization Committee by its resolution dated 18.02.2004; that he was in possession of the land eversince from then. Three years thereafter, the villagers approached the Assistant Commissioner requesting to cancel the grant on various grounds. Firstly, that the land is situated within 3.5 kilometers from the Town Municipal Corporation limits; that the land is Kharab bande (land); that the petitioner is not an agriculturist but he is working in Electricity Board and also on various grounds. The Assistant Commissioner cancelled the grant and also withdrawn the saguvali chit issued in his favour. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was dismissed.
Being aggrieved by the two orders, the petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge considered all the contentions and came to the conclusion that the grant of land is illegal; that the land has already been reserved for public purpose; that it is a kharab land and therefore, the grant stands vitiated.
4. On considering the contentions and material on records, it is clear that the grant made by the Akrama- Sakrama Regularization Committee is illegal and without any authorization. The grant of land which is not authorized by law cannot be sustained. The land is Kharab land and is reserved for public purpose under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Therefore, the grant was wrongly made. Having realized the mistake, the authorities have withdrawn the grant and cancelled the saguvali chit issued. The recalling of the order of grant of land is in accordance with law. The same has been done after the fact is being brought to the notice of the authorities. Under such circumstance, we do not find any good ground to interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj