Sri.Ninganagouda S/O.Budanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.LND/CR/01/2000-01 DATED 31.12.2009 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-S PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2013, BEARING NO.RTS.A.CR-55/2009-10 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-T PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has called in question the impugned orders dated 31.12.2009, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and 06.08.2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the land granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1958 for nursery purposes has been cancelled and consequential directions have been issued to resume possession.

¶28

Brief facts:

¶29

The petitioner is an agriculturalist residing at Saptapur Village, Dharwad. An extent of 15.5 guntas of land in Sy.No.86 of Saptapur Village was granted to him on 26.08.1958 for the purpose of running a nursery by the

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:441 WP No. 81863 of 2013

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

competent authority. The petitioner paid occupancy price and executed a kabuliyat deed on 18.09.1958. According to the petitioner, he has been in continuous possession and personal cultivation of the land ever since the date of grant and has raised nursery plantation, obtained electricity connection and improved the land. Though all the conditions of grant were complied with, his name was not entered in the revenue records. When he sought mutation, the authorities initiated suo motu cancellation proceedings.

¶33

Earlier proceedings culminated in

¶34

W.P.No.181/2008, wherein this Court remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to afford opportunity and consider the matter afresh. Despite producing several documents including certificates issued by revenue officials, electricity bills, affidavits of purchases and other supporting materials, the Assistant Commissioner again cancelled the grant, which was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC-D:441 WP No. 81863 of 2013

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶39

the impugned orders are arbitrary, not a speaking order, and contrary to the evidence on record. The authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in initiating cancellation proceedings when the grievance was only for the entry of name in the revenue records. The directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.181/2008 were not complied with. The certificates issued by the Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector and other officials along with their electricity bills and affidavits clearly establish continuous nursery activity. The cancellation of the grant after a lapse of more than 45 years is illegal opposed to settled principles of law.

¶40

5. Per contra , the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submits that mere payment of occupancy right and execution of the kabuliyat deed do not confer any right unless all conditions are fulfilled. It is contended that the petitioner has not utilized the land for necessary purposes, thereby violating Condition 4 of the grant. The Tahasildar's report dated 14.12.2009 clearly

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC-D:441 WP No. 81863 of 2013

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

states that the land was not used for the purpose for which it was granted. It is further submitted that the electricity bills relied upon are only for the period 2006-08 i.e., subsequent to cancellation. The Civil suit and the compromise relied upon by the petitioner are between private parties and have no relevance to revenue proceedings. The writ petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal in limine .

¶45

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

¶46

The grant in favour of the petitioner in the year 1958 is undisputed. The petitioner has remained in possession for several decades, which fact is also seriously not disputed though the nature of use is questioned. This Court in W.P.No.181/2008 had specifically directed the authorities to reconsider the matter by assigning reasons on the documents produced and after affording opportunity. The impugned order passed by the authorities indicate that

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC-D:441 WP No. 81863 of 2013

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

they disbelieved the petitioner's documents, the authorities have placed predominant reliance on the Tahasildar's report while brushing aside the certificates issued by their own officials, without cogent reasons. Such an approach renders the decision making process arbitrary. The proceedings for cancellation has been initiated after several decades of the grant. In the absence of any clear and cogent evidence of deliberate violation of the grants, such belated actions cannot be sustained. The impugned orders do not deflect the application of mind and largely repetitive and conclusory, thereby failing the test of a reasoned order. Accordingly, the impugned orders suffer from procedural impropriety, non-application of mind, and violation of principle justice warranting interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC-D:441 WP No. 81863 of 2013

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

ii. The impugned order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad and the impugned order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad are hereby quashed .

¶57

iii. The respondents are directed to restore the grant made in favour of the petitioner and enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in terms of the original grant order dated 26.08.1958 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶58

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶59

AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Sri.Ninganagouda S/O.Budanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Ninganagouda S/O.Budanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ghodawat Fresheners LLP Vs Union of India

Maradi Sannakanimavva Vs State of Karnataka

Thimmanna S/O. Venkappa Hanagandi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. R H Havanur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B v Santoji Vs the State of Karnataka

Basamma W/O Hirebalappa Uppar Vs the Deputy Commissioner