Smt.Akkayamma vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2067 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                            AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

             W.A.No.1131/2021 (KLR, RR/SUR)

BETWEEN :
SMT.AKKAYAMMA
W/O PAPANNA
AGED 63 YEARS
R/AT GUNDUR VILALGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, MANDUR POST
BANGALORE EAST TALUK 571428.                       ...APPELLANT

                   (BY SMT.VIDYA.S., ADV.)

AND :
1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETAWRY
        REVENUE DEPARTMETN
        M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

2.      THE PRESIDENT
        COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION
        OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION
        BANGALORE EAST TALUK
        BANGALORE-571428

3.      THE TAHSILDAR,
        BANGALORE EAST TALUK
        BANGALORE EAST TALUK
        BANGALORE-571428.                    ...RESPONDENTS

              (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA.)
                               -2-



      THIS W.A. IS FILED       UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT          ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS' AND SET ASIDE         THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE          IN W.P.NO.33641/2016 DATED
03.08.2021 AND ETC.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

This intra-Court appeal is directed against the

order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.33641/2016, whereby the writ petition

filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed.

2. The appellant has approached the Writ

Court challenging the order dated 27.10.2014

[Annexure-F] whereby the respondent No.3 has directed

the appellant to handover possession of the land in

Sy.No.61 of Guntur Village, earlier Bangalore South

Taluk and presently Bangalore East Taluk [hereinafter

referred to as 'subject land'], rejecting the application

filed in Form No.53 by the appellant. The learned Single

Judge after hearing both the parties has dismissed the

Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant referring

to Annexure-E dated 05.01.2004, the decision of the

Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized

Occupation [Bagar Hukkum Committee] submitted that

a decision was taken to consider 11 applications and

instructions were given to the Committee Secretary to

issue cultivation permission cards, ignoring the same,

Annexure-F is arbitrarily issued by the Tahasildar -

respondent No.4 without jurisdiction. Learned counsel

submitted that the appellant was one of the

beneficiaries amongst 11 applicants. Such being the

position, Tahasildar who was one of the member of the

Committee has no jurisdiction to issue the endorsement

at Annexure-F; no reference was made to the decision of

the Committee in Annexure-F.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for the respondents justifying the

impugned orders submitted that in the case on hand,

Section 94B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964

['Act' for short] is not applicable, so also Rule 108CC of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 ['Rules' for

short]. Drawing the attention of the Court to Section

94-A of the Act and the proviso therein, submitted that

no land could be granted if such land is situated within

a radius of 18 kilometers of the Cities and City

Municipalities coming under the BBMP limits. The

recommendation of the Committee cannot partake the

character of final decision. Such recommendation has to

be considered by the Tahasildar under Rule 108-D[3],

the Tahasildar has a discretionary power to take

appropriate decision either to accept the

recommendation of the Committee or to dismiss the

application. No order of grant being issued to the

appellant, the action initiated by the Tahasildar as per

Annexure-F is justifiable. Reliance was placed on the

decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Sri.M.R.Ramaswamy and Others V/s. The

Tahasildhar and Others in W.A.No.117/2020 [DD

15.11.2021].

5. We have considered the rival submissions of

the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the material on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed

much emphasis on Annexure-E dated 05.01.2004

arguing that the same is the decision of the Committee

for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation. It is

discernable from the said document Annexure-E that

the Committee appears to have taken a decision

considering 11 applications to issue cultivation

permission cards, one amongst them being the

appellant herein. It is not forthcoming whether any

grant order was issued pursuant to the said

recommendation of the Committee. Annexure-F dated

27.10.2014 has been issued directing the appellant to

handover possession of the subject land which does

not refer to the Committee's so called

decision/recommendation. Further, the Tahasildar has

referred to the Government Circular No.R.D.168, LGP

2014 dated 09.06.2014 which is not applicable to the

facts of the present case. As per the said Circular, the

lands coming within the radius of 25 kilometers of the

limits of BBMP are not eligible for regularization

whereas, the arguments of the learned Additional

Government Advocate would indicate the radius of 18

kilometers as per Section 94-A and the proviso thereof

is applicable. These aspects would demonstrate non-

application of mind by the Tahasildar in issuing

Annexure-F.

7. It is trite that any order passed without

assigning valid reasons in a cryptic and cavalier manner

is vitiated and deserves to be set aside. There is no

semblance about the Committee's recommendation. The

application filed in Form No.53 on 03.12.1998 is

considered and disposed of on 27.10.2014. No

explanation is forthcoming for the delay caused in

taking the decision on the said application. In our

considered view, the endorsement being vague and

without application of mind the same calls for

interference. Hence, setting aside the said Annexure-F

and the order of the learned Single Judge, we deem it

appropriate to remand the matter to the respondent

No.4 for re-consideration.

8. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i] The order of the learned Single Judge dated

03.08.2021 impugned herein and the order

of the Tahasildar dated 27.10.2014

impugned at Annexure-F are set aside.

ii] The matter is restored to the file of the

Tahasildar for re-consideration. The

Tahasildr shall re-consider the matter in

accordance with law and shall pass a

speaking order assigning reasons, keeping in

mind the observations made herein above.

iii] Compliance shall be made within a period of

eight weeks from the date of receipt of

certified copy of the order.

iv] With the aforesaid observations and

directions, Writ Appeal stands disposed of.

v] In view of disposal of the Writ Appeal, all the

pending I.As stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NC.