Allowed

Sri Padmanabha Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2022WP/6705/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition contesting the cancellation of a land grant. The Court held that under Section 94-B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, land even with Kumki privileges can be granted if the occupier was in unauthorized occupation before April 14, 1990.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Deputy Commissioner and Karnataka Appellate Tribunal set aside; order of grant in favour of the petitioner restored; Writ Petition allowed.

Sri Padmanabha Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.6705/2017 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.PADMANABHA SHETTY S/O LATE UGGAPPA SHETTY AGED 57 YEARS

¶9

OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT KODIAL HOUSE KUDAMBETTU VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 219

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K.DISTRICT MANGALORE-575 001

¶15

3 . THE ADDL. LAND GRANT COMMITTEE BANTWAL, REP BY THE TAHASILDAR 574 211

¶16

¶17

4 . SRI.VITTAL SHETTY S/O LATE UGGAPPA SHETTY AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT KODIAL HOUSE KUDAMBETTUR VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K.DISTRICT-574 211

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI CC.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 R4 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD: 30.11.2016 IN APPEAL NO.764/2009 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner made an application seeking for

¶24

grant of land under Section 94-B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). In other words, he claimed that he was in unauthorised occupation of this land prior to the 14^th day of April 1990. This application was in respect of land bearing Sy.No.29/1B(P) in respect of 01 acre 17 cents. The Land

¶25

¶26

Grant Committee considered the application of the petitioner and passed an order recommending the said land to be granted in favour of the petitioner. This recommendation was accepted by the Tahasildar and it is stated that a saguvali-chit was also issued.

¶27

This order of grant was challenged by one Vittala Shetty, by preferring an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner took the view that the land sought for by the petitioner could not have been granted without extinguishing the kumki rights that Vittala Shetty (Respondent No.4) possessed. The Deputy Commissioner accordingly cancelled the grant.

¶28

It may also be pertinent to state here that the Deputy Commissioner, in the very same order, also took the view that the characteristics of the kumki land were lost by virtue of the unauthorised occupation of the said land by the petitioner and as a consequence, Vittala Shetty had also lost his privileges over the said land. The Deputy Commissioner accordingly allowed the

¶29

¶30

appeal directing the Tahasildar to take the possession of the land forthwith.

¶31

This order was accepted by Vittala Shetty and was challenged only by the petitioner herein before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.

¶32

The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal concurred with the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. As against these orders, by which the grant made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and was confirmed in appeal, the present writ petition is preferred.

¶33

It may be pertinent to state here that Vittala Shetty

¶34

who had challenged the order of grant in favour of the petitioner and who claimed kumki privileges did not challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner by which the Deputy Commissioner had held that Vittala Shetty had lost kumki privileges which he had over the

¶35

¶36

said land by virtue of the petitioner’s unauthorised occupation.

¶37

Thus, the only question that is required to be considered was whether the petitioner was entitled for grant of the land in question under Section 94B of the Act.

¶38

Section 94-B of the Act categorically states that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of the Act, if the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that prior to 14^th day of April 1990, any person was in unauthorised occupation of any land, the same can be granted to him subject to him being eligible. Section 94B(1)(i) of the Act reads as follows:

¶39

"94-B. Grant of land in certain cases.—

¶40

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the Deputy Commissioner or other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf is satisfied after holding such enquiry as he deems fit, that a person,-

¶41

¶42

(i) has, prior to the fourteenth day of April 1990 unauthorisedly occupied any land including land referred to in subsection (2) of section 79 from which he is liable to be evicted under section 94; and ...."

¶43

(emphasis supplied)

¶44

Subsection (2) of Section 79 of the Act reads as follows:

¶45

"79. Regulation of supply of firewood and timber for domestic or other purposes.— (1) x x x

¶46

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) but subject to such general or special orders that may be issued by the State Government from time to time, the privileges that are being enjoyed either by custom or under any order such as privileges in respect of Kumki lands, Bane lands and Kane lands in South Kanara District, Betta lands and Hadi lands in North Kanara District, Kan and Soppina Betta lands in Mysore Area, Jamma and Bane in Coorg District and Motasthal wet lands in Gulbarga Area shall continue.

¶47

¶48

A conjoint reading of Section 94-B(1)(i) and

¶49

Section 79(2) of the Act would clearly indicate that the even the lands over which kumki privilege existed can be granted to any person, if he is able to establish that he is in unauthorised occupation over the said land prior to 14^th day of April 1990. Since the statue specifically provides that even the land over which a person may have kumki privileges can be granted to any person, the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner as well as by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal that since Vittala Shetty had kumki privileges, the same could not be granted to the petitioner under Section 94-B of the Act, cannot be legally sustained.

¶50

As stated above, since Section 94-B of the Act provides for regularisation of grant even in respect of kumki land, whether the kumki privileges were extinguished or not would be irrelevant for the purpose of Section 94-B of the Act especially since Section 94-B of the Act begins with a non-obstanté clause.

¶51

¶52

In view of the permissibility of a kumki land being granted under Section 94-B(1)(i) of the Act, the view taken by both Authorities that the land could not have been granted to the petitioner on the ground that it was a kumki land cannot be sustained.

¶53

The orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal are accordingly set aside .

¶54

Consequently, the order of grant made in favour of the petitioner shall stand restored.

¶55

The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶56

SD/JUDGE

¶57

¶58

CT:AN

Sri Padmanabha Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Padmanabha Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jayaramu Vs the State of Karnataka

K M Aliyulla Khan, Since Presumed Dead by LRs Smt. Yasmiin Ali Khan Vs R Sarvesha Murthy

Smt Parvathamma Vs Special Tahasildar

Smt v M Sumithra Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri M Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka