Smt.Jayalakshamma vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2860 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

                            AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

                W.A.No.1120/2021(KLR-REG)
BETWEEN:

SMT. JAYALAKSHAMMA
WIFE OF KRISHNAPPA
AGED AT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT GUNDUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
MANDUR POST
BANGALORE EAST TALUK-571 428.
                                              ...APPELLANT

[BY SMT. VIDYA S., ADVOCATE (VC)]

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       SECRETARY
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT
       M.S.BUILDING
       BANGALORE-560 001.

2.     THE PRESIDENT
       COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF
       UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION
       BANGALORE EAST TALUK
       BANGALORE-571 428.
                               -- 2 -




3.       THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK
         BANGALORE EAST TALUK
         BANGALORE-571 428.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA (PH)]

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS,
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE PASSED IN W.P.No.33640/2016 DATED 03.08.2021 AND
ETC.,


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, RAVI V. HOSMANI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

Challenging order dated 03.08.2021 passed by learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.33640/2016, whereby writ petition

filed by appellant herein has been dismissed, this appeal is

filed.

2. The appellant herein was the petitioner, while

respondents herein were respondents respectively in the

writ petition.

3. Facts in brief are that challenging order dated

27.10.2014 (Annexure-G) issued by respondent No.3, and

-- 3 -

seeking for a direction to consider petitioner's

representation dated 02.04.2015 (Annexure - H), in

pursuance of order passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure -

F), W.P.No.33640/2016 was filed. Under the impugned

order, respondent no.3 had rejected application filed by

petitioner in Form no.53 and directed petitioner to handover

possession of 2 acres 20 guntas extent of land in Sy.No.61

of Guntur village, earlier Bangalore South Taluk and

presently Bangalore East Taluk (hereinafter referred to as

'subject land'). The said writ petition however, was

dismissed leading to this Writ Appeal.

4. It was submitted that vide resolution of

Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation

(Bagar Hukkum Committee) dated 05.01.2004 (Annexure-

E), it was resolved to consider 11 applications and

directions were given to Committee Secretary to issue

Saguvali chit. However, ignoring resolution, Annexure - G

was arbitrarily issued by Tahasildar - respondent No.4

without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that

-- 4 -

appellant was one of the beneficiaries amongst 11

applicants. Such being the position, Tahasildar, who was

one of member of the Committee had no jurisdiction to

issue endorsement rejecting the application without

referring to decision of Committee.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for respondents sought to justify

impugned orders. He 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 attention of this Court to Section 94-A of the Act

and proviso therein, submitted that no land could be

granted if such land were situated within radius of 18

kilometers of Cities and City Municipalities coming under

BBMP limits. The recommendation of Committee cannot

partake character of final decision. Such recommendation

has to be considered under Rule 108-D(3), and Tahasildar

has discretionary power to take appropriate decision either

-- 5 -

to accept recommendation of Committee or to dismiss the

application. As no grant order was issued to appellant,

action initiated by Tahasildar as per Annexure - G was

justified. Reliance was placed on decision of 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].

6. We have considered rival submissions of learned

counsel appearing for the parties and perused material on

record.

7. Learned counsel for appellant has placed much

emphasis on Annexure - F dated 05.01.2004 arguing that it

was decision of Committee for Regularization of

Unauthorized Occupation. It is discernable from Annexure -

F that Committee appears to have taken decision to

consider 11 applications and to issue Saguvali chit to them.

One amongst them was appellant herein. It is not

forthcoming whether any grant order was issued pursuant

to said recommendation. However, Annexure - G dated

-- 6 -

27.10.2014 has been issued directing appellant to handover

possession of subject land without referring to order

passed by Committee. Further, Tahasildar has referred to

Government Circular No.R.D.168, LGP 2014 dated

09.06.2014 which is not applicable to facts of present case.

As per said Circular, lands coming within radius of 25

kilometers of limits of BBMP are not eligible for

regularization whereas, arguments of learned Additional

Government Advocate would indicate radius of 18

kilometers as per Section 94-A and proviso thereof is

applicable. These aspects would demonstrate non-

application of mind by Tahasildar in issuing Annexure - G.

8. 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 reference to

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 delay caused

in taking decision on said application. In our considered

-- 7 -

view, the endorsement being vague and without application

of mind, calls for interference. Hence, setting aside said

Annexure - G and order of the learned Single Judge, we

deem it appropriate to remand matter to respondent No.4

for re-consideration. This issue was considered by this Court

in the case of Smt. Akkayamma vs. State of Karnataka

and others (W.A.No.1131/2021, DD:09.02.2022) and in

identical circumstances, the matter has been restored to the

file of respondent No.4 for reconsideration.

9. 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 - G are set aside insofar as appellant is concerned.

ii) The matter is restored to file of Tahasildar for re-consideration. The Tahasildar shall re- consider the matter in accordance with law and shall pass a speaking order assigning

-- 8 -

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.

In view of disposal of the Writ Appeal, all the

pending I.As stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BVK