The State Of Karnataka vs Sri M P Dheeraj
2022 Latest Caselaw 12956 Kant

                           -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                        PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

        WRIT APPEAL NO.259 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

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

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       B.M. ROAD, HASSAN DISTRICT
       HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

3.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       YETTINAHOLE PROJECT
       4TH CROSS
       MASTI IYENGAR ROAD
       KUVEMPU NAGAR
       HASSAN - 573 201.
                                              ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA)


AND

1.     SRI M.P. DHEERAJ
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
       S/O SRI PALAKSHA
       MUGALI VILLAGE
       BELAGODU HOBLI
       SAKLESHPURA TALUK
       HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 214.
                             -2-


2.    VISHVESHWARAYA JALA NIGAMA NIYAMITHA
      YETTINOHOLE PROJECT
      No.9, ALUR - 573 213
      HASSAN DISTRICT
      REPRESENTED BY
      SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.N. SHASHIDHAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
 FOR SRI H.S. SUHAS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
                           ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2021 PASSED IN W.P. NO.10467/2020
AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND PASS SUCH OTHER
ORDERS.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

Heard Sri S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the appellants.

2. The learned Additional Government Advocate

vehemently submits that the order dated 25.01.2021 in

W.P.No.10467/2020 was passed by the learned Single

Judge on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer. He submits that the learned Single

Judge accepted the statement made in the said affidavit

that the land measuring 2 acres 37 guntas which was

acquired for Yettinahole Drinking Water Project was granted

by the Deputy Commissioner to respondent No.1/petitioner

and as such, he is entitled for compensation. He further

submits that it is also stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit

that to enable respondent No.1/petitioner to receive

compensation as per acquisition, the Land Acquisition

Officer has to send proposal for issuance of corrigendum to

the preliminary notification dated 28.02.2019 and the final

notification dated 03.09.2020 and the same has to be

approved by the State Government for issuance of

appropriate gazette notification. After the above said

procedure, the Deputy Commissioner will issue award

notice and compensation will be paid to respondent

No.1/petitioner in accordance with law. Accepting these

statements made in the affidavit, the learned Single Judge

permitted the Authorities of the State Government to rectify

the preliminary notification and the final notification so as

to show the name of respondent No.1/petitioner within a

period of six months. It was further observed that no

further proceedings as regards passing of award shall be

made till such rectification in the notifications is made.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate

submits that the State Government has complied with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge by inclusion of

the name of respondent No.1/petitioner in the preliminary

notification and the final notification. However, while

passing the award, the Deputy Commissioner found that

the grant of land in favour of respondent No.1/petitioner

itself was unsustainable and impermissible. It is also

contended that because of some negligence or mischief

played by some officers of the State Government,

respondent No.1/petitioner, who was not even entitled for

any grant, has been granted the land. He further submits

that if compensation is awarded to respondent No.1/

petitioner, serious prejudice would be caused to the State

Government and the State Government would be subjected

to financial loss by payment of compensation to respondent

No.1/petitioner.

4. Though these submissions of the learned

Additional Government Advocate appear to be appealing,

however, on perusal of the documents placed on record

which indicate sequence of events, we are unable to accept

the said submissions. At the cost of repetition, we may

state that the learned Single Judge has passed the

impugned order by relying on the affidavit filed on behalf of

the State Government through the Special Land Acquisition

Officer. However, leisurely i.e., after a lapse of about ten

months, the State Government filed R.P.No.395/2021 on

10.12.2021 for review of the order passed in the writ

petition.

5. The submissions urged by the learned

Additional Government Advocate before us were also urged

before the learned Single Judge in the review petition. The

learned Single Judge has referred to the submissions of the

learned Additional Advocate General in paragraph 7, which

reads as under:-

"7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the review petitioners has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, on 06.10.2020 as per the document at Annexure-R1 filed along with the statement of objections, permanent grant in favour of the katha holder i.e., writ petitioner was made with respect to the land in question, which order of grant dated 06.10.2020 was illegal and contrary to Rule 23 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. It is further submitted that the said permanent grant could not have been made and that on 02.12.2021, a show cause notice was issued to the Special Land Acquisition Officer as to why disciplinary proceedings are not to be initiated. It is further submitted that by order dated 07.01.2022, the grant upon which the petitioner had relied upon and was taken note of by this Court has been eventually cancelled. It is submitted that

the petitioner was ineligible to claim benefit of the permanent grant made on 06.10.2020 as the same was not permissible under law and officers have colluded with the petitioner in conferring rights that were non-existent eventually causing prejudice to the interests of the State."

6. In paragraph 12 of the order, the learned Single

Judge has observed as under:

"12. Clearly, the initiation of proceedings by the State by way of show cause notice to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated was only on 02.12.2021 while the order passed by this Court was on 25.01.2021. It is submitted that the cancellation of permanent grant was made on 07.01.2022 which again is an order passed subsequent to filing of the review petition. All these proceedings relating to cancellation of grant are subsequent to the order passed by this Court. Taking note of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others vs. Kamal Sengupta (supra) at paragraph No.35 it is clear that the happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order passed by the Court as being vitiated by an error apparent. If according to the State the temporary grant of 1961 could not be regularised as per the permanent grant as per the relevant land grant rules, then under what circumstances permanent grant was made on 06.10.2020 is a matter for the State to explain. The question as to whether officers of the State have played fraud, is a matter open to the State to take action as per law. As to when the fraud was discovered is also a question that the State will have to address in appropriate proceedings. The allegation of fraud is a vague allegation

bereft of particulars. In the present case, affidavit relied on by the Court is by an officer of the State. The Government Advocate at the relevant point of time has also made submissions on the basis of such affidavit. Whether the grant made on 06.10.2020 was invalid as being against law is a matter that remains open for adjudication in light of the order of cancellation of grant on 07.01.2022. All these subsequent developments cannot be grounds for review of the order passed by this Court on the material available before the Court and put forth by the State itself pursuant to the order of grant that was passed. Whatever the legal right the State seeks to assert is a matter left open to the State in accordance with law."

7. The learned Single Judge opined that the scope

of review proceedings is limited and the Court cannot

reopen the matter which strikes at the very sanctity of

finality of proceedings and must be exercised with great

circumspection. The learned Single Judge observed that by

playing mischief or fraud, grant was made to respondent

No.1/petitioner and subsequently, the same was cancelled

on 07.01.2022. It was further observed that the legal

attack to such grant and its culmination in cancellation are

the subject matters of separate proceedings and this Court

cannot take note of any such proceedings to grant relief in

the review petition. Ultimately, the review petition was

dismissed as devoid of merits.

8. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the

grounds urged before us in this writ appeal were also urged

before the learned Single Judge in the review petition. The

learned Single Judge dealt with each ground in detail and

by assigning appropriate reasons, has dismissed the review

petition.

9. In view of the above referred facts, at the most,

it can be said that subsequent to the order of the learned

Single Judge in the writ petition, some authority of the

State Government realised the mistake and then, as if after

a wake up from deep slumber, the other Authorities acted

upon and gave momentum to the matter which was set at

rest by the order of the learned Single Judge in the writ

petition and thereafter, filed the review petition. It is also to

be noted that after complying the order of the learned

Single Judge by including the name of respondent

No.1/petitioner in the preliminary notification and the final

notification, the present writ appeal has been filed.

10. Considering all these aspects, we are of the

opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same

deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is

dismissed.

11. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, the

pending interlocutory applications do not survive for

consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KPS