Devappa Naduvinamani Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2011 BEARING NO./KANDAYA/LRM/192 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2013 BEARING NO./KANDAYA/LRM/DCL/192/2004-05 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1-3 IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO GRANT SOME OTHER SUITABLE LAND IN THE SAME VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONERS IMMEDIATELY FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14484 WP No. 106286 of 2014

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

¶37

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent/State. Petition against respondent no. 5 is dismissed as abated.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit. petitioner no.1 is no more and legal representatives are not brought on record.

¶39

Petition filed by petitioner no.1 is technically

¶40

dismissed as abated.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners no. 2 and 3.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners no. 2 and 3 would submit that the land in question was originally granted to the petitioners under Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is his submission that the earlier landlord had filed a declaration stating that the land held by the fifth respondent - landlord was surplus and thereafter, the lands were granted to the petitioners. It is his further submission that later, respondent no. 5 filed a Writ Petition challenging the order declaring the land

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14484 WP No. 106286 of 2014

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

as surplus on the premise that holding permissible for one of the sons of respondent no. 5 was not taken into account, as such, the order treating the land as surplus was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal.

¶47

Thereafter, the Tribunal has held that the land is not surplus in the hands of respondent no.5. As such the grant made in favour of petitioners is cancelled.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the changed circumstances, the petitioners would restrict their claim only to the alternative prayer for grant of land elsewhere in the same Taluk.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that since the petitioners were granted land earlier under Section 77 of The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, it is to be presumed that they were eligible for grant of surplus land. Thus, it is his contention that in case the petition schedule lands were not available for grant in favour of the petitioners, the authorities are under an obligation to consider whether any surplus land is available in the same Taluk and if so, they are under obligation to grant the same in favour of the petitioners.

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14484 WP No. 106286 of 2014

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Learned Government Advocate would oppose the petition on the premise that the petitioners are not eligible for the alternative relief. The land was granted to the petitioners earlier on the earlier finding recorded which held that the land in the hands of respondent no. 5 was surplus and as such, it was granted to the petitioners. Now, it is found that the land is not surplus, as such, the petitioners are not eligible for any grant.

¶53

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶54

There is no dispute that earlier the land was granted to the petitioners, and prior to the grant, the land was declared as surplus in the hands of respondent no. 5. It would indicate that the petitioners were eligible for grant. Later, the land in the hands of respondent no.5 are not found to be surplus as such, the grant is cancelled.

¶55

Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 provides for grant of surplus land to the eligible persons. If it is found that the surplus land is available in the same Taluk and if it is found that the petitioners are even now eligible for grant in the Taluk and if it is found that the petitioners are not otherwise

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14484 WP No. 106286 of 2014

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ineligible to claim grant, then the respondent/authorities shall consider, whether any such land which is a surplus land within the meaning of Section 77 of The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 that can be granted to the petitioners in the same Taluk where it is granted earlier.

¶59

It is also noticed that petitioner no.1 is no more. However, petitioners are not questioning the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The prayer is to grant the surplus land if it is available in the same Taluk.

¶60

Hence the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) Writ Petition is disposed .

¶63

(ii) The legal representatives of petitioner no.1 are permitted to file an application before the competent authority under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for grant of land if it is available for grant, and if legal representatives are eligible for grant.

¶64