Karnataka High Court
Sri Ujjappa Ningappa Kamdod vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 October, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.P.No.11546/2017(GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI UJJAPPA NINGAPPA KAMDOD
S/O SRI NINGAPPA MALLAPPA
KAMADOD,AGED 50 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MAGOD
POST MAGOD, RANEBENNUR TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 581 115.
2. SRI CHANABASANGOUD SHIVAPPA
MUDIGOUDRA, S/O SRI SHIVAPPA
AGED 43 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MAGOD
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 581 115.
3. SRI AJJAPPA CHANNAPPA HALABHAVI
S/O SRI CHANNAPPA
AGED 54 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MAGOD
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI
DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 581 115.
4. SRI NINGANAGOUDA HARIHARAPPA
MUDIGOUDRA
S/O SRI HARIHARAPPA MUDIGOUDRA
AGED 55 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING
NEAR MARUTHI TEMPLE MAGOD
RANEBENNUR TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 581 115.
2
5. SRI RAMAPPA NINGAPPA MUDAKANAGOUDER
S/O SRI NINGAPPA HANUMAPPA
MUDAKANAGOUDER
AGED 38 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING MAGOD
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 581 115.
6. SRI RAMANAGOUD DODDAHANUMANTAPPA
MUDIGOUDER
S/O SRI DODDAHANUMANTAPPA
AGED 65 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MAGOD
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 581 115.
7. SRI REVANAPPA HANUMANTAPPA
KAREGOUDRA
S/O SRI HANUMANTAPPA
AGED 53 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING MAGOD
RANEBENNUR TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 581 115.
8. SRI HANAMANTAPPA HALAPPA KARJAGI
S/O SRI HALAPPA
AGED 62 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING MAGOD
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA - 581 115. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.V. BHAT, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES &
COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
3
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HAVERI DISTRICT
HAVERI - 581 110.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
RANEBENNUR TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT.
6. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14/3, 2ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA
PARISHAT BUILDING
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN.
7. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4TH & 5TH FLOOR
EAST WING, NO.49, RACE COURSE
ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
8. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BELGAUM DIVISION
BELGAUM - 590 001.
9. THE DISTRICT JUDGE
HAVERI DISTRICT
HAVERI - 581 110.
10. THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
HAVERI DIVISION
HAVERI - 581 110. ...RESPONDENTS
4
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR
R-1 TO R-5, R-8 & R-10;
SRI GURUMATH GANGADHAR RUDRAMUNI SHARMA,
SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,
FOR R-6 & R-7; SRI MAHESH R UPPIN, ADV., FOR
APPLICANT IN IA 1/2020; SRI UDAYA HOLLA,
SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI VIVEK HOLLA, ADV., FOR R-9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD.10.8.1993 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE
ANNEX-F.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESEVED,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH
SHETTY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners who are the permanent residents of
Magodu village, Ranebennur Taluk, Haveri District, have
preferred this public interest litigation with a prayer to
quash the order dated 10.08.1993 issued by respondent
no.4, order dated 08.12.2006 issued by respondent no.5,
order dated 12.08.2014 issued by respondent no.1,
which are produced at Annexures-F, L, & M, respectively,
and have sought for quashing the notifications dated
13.01.2010 issued under Sections 3(1), 1(3) & 28(1) of
the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966
(for short, 'the Act of 1966'), and also the notification
dated 15.06.2013 issued under Section 28(4) of the Act,
which are produced at Annexures-N, P, Q & R,
respectively, and further sought to quash the order dated
31.12.2015 passed by respondent no.1 vide Annexure-S.
The petitioners have also sought for the consequential
reliefs of issuing necessary direction to take back the
possession of the lands which are the subject matter of
the above referred orders and to restore the mutation
entry in respect of the said land as Gomal land.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
also perused the material on record.
3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the
records are, that the land bearing Sy. No.11A measuring
198 acres 11 guntas and Sy. No.13 measuring 62 acres
38 guntas situated at Magodu village, Ranebennur Taluk,
are Gomal lands which are reserved for the purpose of
grazing the cattle in Magodu village. It is the case of the
petitioners that there are about 1200 cattle in the village
and the aforesaid Gomal lands are required for the
purpose of grazing of these cattle. The respondent-
authorities contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964')
have passed various orders de-reserving portions of the
aforesaid Gomal lands and this act of theirs continued
right from the year 1993 upto 2015, inspite of there
being objection from the villagers of Magodu village. The
portion of de-reserved lands have also been allotted to
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short,
'the Board'), who inturn wants to develop the said land
for industrial purpose and in the said event, the ecology
of the locality is likely to be affected. The Gomal land
which is now available in the village is hardly sufficient
for the purpose of grazing the cattle in the village and
since the objections raised by the villagers in this regard
were completely ignored or not considered by the
concerned authorities, the petitioners have approached
this Court seeking for the aforesaid prayers.
4. The contesting respondents have filed their
objections and opposed the prayers made in the petition.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
vide the order dated 10.08.1993 at Annexure-F, an
extent of 30 acres was de-reserved in Sy. No.11A of
Magodu village and vide order dated 08.12.2006 as per
Annexure-L, the entire extent in the land bearing Sy.
Nos.11A & 13 have been mutated in the name of land
bank by the Tahsildar and further, under order dated
12.08.2014 vide Annexure-M, prior permission has been
granted by respondent no.1 for de-reservation of 10
acres of land in Sy. Nos.11A & 13 for the purpose of
constructing court buildings and under order dated
31.12.2015 vide Annexure-S, an extent of 100 acres of
land in Sy. No.11A and an extent of 62.38 acres in Sy.
No.13 has been de-reserved. He submits that an order
has been passed on 12.02.2016 by respondent no.5 for
transfer of 100 acres in Sy. No.11A and the entire extent
of 62 acres 38 guntas in Sy. No.13 for the purpose of
establishing industries and pursuant to the said order, on
27.06.2016, the Tahsildar has handed over the aforesaid
lands to the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Board,
who inturn has handed over the said lands to the Board
on 08.07.2016 for the purpose of development. He
submits that the competent authority while passing the
order under Section 71 of the Act of 1964, is required to
assign reasons for de-reserving of Gomal lands and the
availability of sufficient land for the purpose of pasturage
of the cattle is also required to be taken care of by him.
He submits that Rule 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the Rules of 1966') mandates the
State to provide for free pasturage at the rate of 12
hectares for every 100 heads of cattle, and therefore, the
Gomal land available in Magodu village is required for the
purpose of pasturage of the existing cattle in the village.
He submits that the distance between Magodu village and
Hunasikatte village is about 6 Kms. and availability of
any Gomal land or green pasturage at Hunasikatte
cannot be a reason for de-reservation of the Gomal land
of Magodu village and the cattle of Magodu village cannot
be expected to go to Hunasikatte village on daily basis
for grazing purpose. He also submits that the petitioners
or any other villagers were not heard by the competent
authorities before passing the order of de-reservation of
the Gomal lands. In support of his contentions, he has
relied upon the following decisions:
i) K.P.MANJUNATHA VS STATE1;
ILR 1976 KAR 946
ii) B.UMESH SHENOY VS SPL. DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER2;
iii) GRAM PANCHAYAT, UGRAGOL VS STATE3;
iv) JAGPAL SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB4.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate submits the impugned notifications have been
issued over a period of time from 1993 to 2015 and the
present writ petition has been filed belatedly in the year
2017. She submits that the land which are the subject
matter of these notifications/orders have been
developed, and therefore, no interference is called for at
this stage. She refers to paragraph 6 of the status report
dated 06.08.2022 filed by her and submits that Magodu
village is situated adjacent to Kamadod village and
Hunalikatti village and there is an extent of about 1245
acres 14 guntas of Government land available in the
aforesaid two villages for the purpose of grazing the
existing cattle of Magodu village as well as other two
villages, and therefore, the de-reservation of the land
bearing Sy. Nos.11A & 13 of Magodu village will not
ILR 2001 KAR 3115
2000(1) KLJ 120
(2011)11 SCC 396
affect the grazing requirement of the existing cattle in
Magodu village.
7. Learned Counsel for the Board submits that the
petitioners have not challenged the de-reservation of the
Gomal lands which are subsequently allotted for the
purpose of construction of a depot in favour of Divisional
Controller, of Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation (KSRTC), Hubballi, and they have also not
challenged the de-reservation of 15 acres of land in Sy.
No.11A for the purpose of allotting sites to the landless
people under the Ashraya scheme. He further submits
that in the year 2006, the entire extent of land bearing
Sy. Nos.11A & 13 are directed to be transferred in the
name of land bank and thereafter, the entries in the
revenue records of the lands were also changed in the
name of the land bank, but the petitioners have not
questioned the same in this writ petition. He submits that
the very same lands have been thereafter allotted to the
Board, and therefore, the prayers made in the writ
petition to the extent it relates to challenging the
notifications under the Act of 1966 cannot be granted.
8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent no.9 submits that the petitioners have not
contended in the writ petition that they were not heard in
the matter by the competent authorities before issuing
the de-reservation orders. He refers to the cattle
strength of Magodu village that existed earlier and the
present existing cattle strength and submits that the
figures show that there is a raise of cattle strength in the
village, and therefore, it has to be presumed that there is
sufficient land available in the village for grazing the
cattle. He also submits that the doctrine of sustainable
development is required to be taken into consideration
and since de-reserved lands have been already put into
use, they have lost the characteristics of Gomal land. He
further submits that the petition is required to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone, since
the petitioners have not approached this Court in time.
9. The petitioners have challenged various
orders/notifications that have been issued de-reserving
Sy. Nos.11A & 13 of Magodu village on different dates
from the year 1993 to 2015. The material on record
would go to show that major portions of the lands that
were de-reserved have been allotted to the Board and
the Board in turn has already taken steps for
development of the said land. It has called for tender for
the purpose of developing the land and also has awarded
the tender to one Suresh S.Kanaji who has filed an
application for impleading in IA-1/2020. The petitioners
who have challenged various orders passed regarding de-
reservation of the Gomal lands from the year 1993
onwards till 2015, for the reasons best known to them
have not challenged the order dated 17.04.1996 and
31.03.1998 under which 3 acres and 15 acres of land in
Sy. No.11A was de-reserved for the purpose of KSRTC
and Ashraya scheme, respectively. Undisputedly, the
said lands have been completely utilised for the purpose
of which they were de-reserved.
10. In K.P.Manjunath's case supra, it has been held
that before passing the de-reservation order or any other
order in respect of a Gomal land, the villagers are
required to be heard. Similar is the view taken by this
Court in Gram Panchayat, Ugragol's case. In the present
case, though a contention has been urged by the learned
Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners and other
villagers were not heard in the matter, he has not
specifically raised such a contention in the writ petition.
11. In Umesh Shenoy's case supra, this Court
having noticed that Gomal lands were de-reserved and
developed for various purposes without taking into
consideration the requirement of Gomal land for the
purpose of grazing the cattle, has observed that if it is
found that the lands reserved for such public purpose
have been de-reserved and developed beyond the
permitted limit, steps shall be taken to ensure that the
shortfall is made good by reserving other Government
lands for such purpose and by creating green belt areas
in the said lands.
12. The learned Additional Government Advocate
has pointed out from the status report that Magodu
village is adjacent to Kamadod village and Hunalikatti
village and nearly about 1245 acres 14 guntas of
Government land is available in these villages for the
purpose of grazing the cattle of these three villages.
Further, the material on record would also go to show
that the cattle strength in the village has now increased,
and therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent no.9, it has to be
presumed that there is sufficient Gomal land and green
pasturage for the purpose of grazing the cattle of the
village. It is trite law that principle of delay and laches
apply to public interest litigation as well. The petitioners
have approached this Court belatedly in the year 2017. It
is the petitioners to note that over a period of time from
1993 onwards, the lands which have been de-reserved
under various orders which are impugned in this writ
petition, have been either utilised or are under the
process of development and at this stage, it would not be
proper for this Court to interfere in the matter by
quashing the said de-reservation orders which have been
passed on various dates between the period from 1993 to
2015. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact
that the Government is under an obligation to provide
sufficient pasturage for the purpose of grazing the cattle
in the village and such an obligation is provided under
Rule 97 of the Rules of 1966.
13. Therefore, respondent nos.1 to 5 herein are
required to consider as to whether all the lands which
have been de-reserved under the orders challenged in
this writ petition have been utilised for the purpose for
which it was de-reserved or whether they have
undergone any development process. In the event, if it is
found that the de-reserved lands have not been utilised
for any purpose or no developmental activities have been
taken in the said lands, respondent nos.1 to 5 are
required to take necessary action for restoring the said
lands as Gomal lands and thereafter necessary action is
also required to be taken by them for making necessary
entries in the revenue records of the said lands. This
exercise is required to be done by them taking into
consideration the existing cattle strength of Magodu
village and the available land for grazing of cattle. In the
event, if the authorities find that the existing Gomal land
or green pasturage available in the village is not
sufficient for the purpose of grazing the cattle of the
village, they are required to reserve other Government
land for the said purpose and suitable action in this
regard is required to be taken by them.
14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jagpal Singh's case supra in support of his contention
that long duration of occupation or huge expenditure in
making constructions by illegal occupants cannot be a
ground for refusing to take action against such illegal
encroachers. The said judgment would not be applicable
to the facts of this case having regard to the reason that
in the present case, there is no illegal encroachment of
the Gomal land and it is a case where the Gomal lands
have been de-reserved for public purpose.
15. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of with the following directions:
i) Respondent nos.1 to 5 are directed to ascertain
as to whether the lands which have been de-reserved
under the various orders which have been challenged in
this writ petition have been utilised or allotted for the
purpose for which they were de-reserved or
whether any developmental activities have taken place in
the said land and if it is found that the lands are not
utilised or allotted for the purpose for which they were
de-reserved, necessary action is required to be taken by
respondent nos.1 to 5 to restore the said lands as Gomal
lands and thereafter take necessary steps to change the
revenue entries of the said lands accordingly.
ii) Respondent nos.1 to 5 shall also take stock of
the existing cattle strength of the village and ascertain
whether sufficient Gomal land and green pasturage as
required under Rule 97 of the Rules of 1966 is available
for the purpose of grazing the cattle of the village.
iii) In the event, if it is found that there is no
sufficient extent of Gomal land or green pasturage
available in the village for grazing the existing cattle
strength of the village, necessary steps shall be taken by
respondent nos.1 to 5 to ensure that the shortfall is
made good by reserving other available Government land
for such purpose and by creating green pasturage areas
in such land.
iv) Respondent nos.1 to 3 are directed that in
future, before de-reserving or deviating the Gomal lands
for any other purpose, the compliance of Rule 97 of the
Rules of 1966 is required to be done and only thereafter
any action to de-reserve or deviate the Gomal land can
be taken.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
