B Panchaksharaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 2216 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                  WA No.2897 of 2019




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023
                                      PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                         AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                       WRIT APPEAL NO.2897 OF 2019 (KLR-LG)
             BETWEEN:

             1.   B. PANCHAKSHARAIAH
                  S/O LATE BASAVAIAH
                  AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
Digitally         KALLANAKERE VILLAGE
signed by         TURUVEKERE TALUK
RUPA V            TUMAKURU DISTRICT
Location:         PRESENTLY R/A NO.309
High Court        3RD MAIN ROAD
of
Karnataka         JAGAJYOTHI LAYOUT
                  JNANABHARATHI POST
                  BANGALORE-560 056.

                                                        ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. K.N. SHIVAREDDY, ADV.,)
             AND:

             1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                  TUMKUR-572101.

             2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                  TIPTUR SUB DIVISION
                  TIPATUR-572201.

             3.   LAND GRANT COMMITTEE
                  REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                  TURUVEKERE-572227.

             4.   BASAVAIAH
                  S/O NANJAIAH
                           -2-
                                     WA No.2897 of 2019




     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
     RESIDING AT KALLANAKERE VILLAGE
     TURUVEKERE TALUK
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT-56.

5.   B. NANJAPPA
     S/O BYRAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
     R/A KALLANAKERE VILLAGE
     TURUVEKERE TALUK
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT-56.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1-R3
V/O DTD:16.12.2019 NOTICE TO R4 & R5 ARE H/S)

    THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 31/05/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.40982/2012 & 11953/2013 [KLR-LG] AND
CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT HEREIN IN R.A.NO.8/2006-17, DT:02/01/2012
MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C AND TO PASS PROPER ORDERS.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal arises out of an order

dated 31.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which writ petitions preferred by respondent Nos.4 and

5 has been allowed and the order dated 02.01.2012

passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru has

been quashed. In order to appreciate the grievance of

WA No.2897 of 2019

the appellant, relevant facts need mention which are

stated infra.

2. Appellant was the owner of land measuring 10

acres situated at Kallanakere Village, Turuvekere Taluk.

He submitted an application for regularization of his

alleged unauthorized cultivation of land bearing

Sy.No.69 measuring 2 acres. The said application was

considered by the Land Grant Committee of Turuvekere

in its meeting held on 30.11.1993. The Committee was

headed by erst while Member of Legislative Assembly of

Turuvekere constituency who, on the same date,

directed regularization of unauthorized occupancy of the

appellant in respect of land measuring 2 acre 18 guntas

of Sy.No.69 of Kallanakere Village. It is pertinent to

note that even though appellant had made an

application for regularization in respect of only 2 acres

of land, yet land measuring 2.18 acres i.e. in excess of

request made, was granted. Respondent Nos.4 and 5,

WA No.2897 of 2019

in this appeal, challenged the aforesaid order in an

appeal before the Assistant Commissioner.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, in its order dated

17.04.2006, inter alia found that appellant and his

family members were owners of land comprised in

several survey numbers. It was held that appellant is

owner of land measuring 2 acres and 18 guntas. His

wife and son are owners of land measuring 18 guntas,

17 guntas and 19 1/2 guntas of Sy.No.45/4, 45/6 and

12/1, respectively. The Assistant Commissioner allowed

the appeal and set aside the order dated 30.11.1993

passed by the Land Grant Committee and remitted the

matter to the Committee for fresh consideration. The

aforesaid order was challenged in an appeal before the

Deputy Commissioner who, by an order dated

02.01.2012, set aside the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner and directed regularization of land in

favour of appellant. The said order was challenged by

WA No.2897 of 2019

respondent Nos.4 and 5 in a writ petition before the

learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by an

order dated 31.05.2019, quashed the order dated

02.01.2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It

was further held that there is no need of remand as the

appellant was having lands in several survey numbers.

Accordingly, the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner insofar as it refrains the decision taken

by the Land Grant Committee was affirmed. In the

aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been

filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the appellant was not owner of any land as on the

date of filing of application under Rule 108-C of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Rules'). It is further submitted that

landless person cannot be deprived of his right of

cultivation. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance

WA No.2897 of 2019

has been placed to the decision of the Division Bench of

this Court in 'THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

Vs. HOLEYAPPA AND OTHERS' ILR 2007 KAR 259.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional

Government Advocate, while inviting the attention of

this Court to provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules

framed thereunder, submitted that appellant was the

owner of the land measuring more than 2 hectares and

therefore, he was not entitled for regularization of the

land.

6. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record. Section 94-A

of the Act deals with regularization of certain cases of

unauthorized occupants by constituting a Committee,

etc. Section 94(4) of the Act and proviso to Section

WA No.2897 of 2019

94(A) of the Act which is relevant for the purposes of

controversy involved in this appeal reads as under:

"94(4) Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Deputy Commissioner and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of, as the Deputy Commissioner may direct and the cost of the removal of any encroachment under this section shall be

recoverable as an arrear of land revenue."

"Provided that the land so granted together with the land already held by such person, shall not exceed two hectares of 'D' class of land or its equivalent thereto:"

Thus, from the aforesaid provision, it is evident

that if a person holds 2 hectares of D class land and is

equivalent thereto, he is not entitled to seek

regularization of the land.

WA No.2897 of 2019

7. Rule 108F of the Rules deals with eligibility for

land which reads as under:

"108-F. Eligibility for Grant :-

No person shall be eligible for grant of land under this Chapter, unless

(i) he has attained the age of eighteen years; and

2[(ii) x x x x x.]

(iii) he is a permanent resident within the limits of the Taluk in which the land is situated or in the adjacent Taluk; and

(iv) he is a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the land personally and is not prohibited from holding or acquiring land under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; and

(v) he is in authorised occupation of land for at least a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the Fourteenth day of April, 1990:

WA No.2897 of 2019

Provided that in the case of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, such period shall be not less than one year.

(vi) Applicant is in unauthorized occupation of land applied, for atleast a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the first day of January 2005."

8. Rule 108-L of the Rules reads as under:

"Grant of Land Discretionary :- Nothing contained in these rules, shall be deemed to confer on any person any right to the grant of the land under his unauthorized occupation."

Thus, on a conjoint reading of the provisions

contained in the Act as well as the Rules, it is evident

that grant of land to a person who is in unauthorized

occupation of the land is discretionary and mere

unauthorized occupation does not confer any vested

right on a claim to seek regularization of the land. The

- 10 -

WA No.2897 of 2019

issue of entitlement of regularization of the land has to

be decided on the touch stone of the aforesaid statutory

provisions and cannot be as a matter of course.

9. In the light of aforesaid statutory provisions, we

may advert to the facts of the case in hand. From

perusal of the documents filed by the appellant himself

in the appeal, it is evident that partition was effected

between the appellant and his wife as well as children.

The partition deed contain a recital that appellant was

in joint possession along with his family members of the

land measuring 3 acres and 32 guntas for more than 30

years. In addition, appellant was also the owner of land

measuring 2 acres and 18 guntas in Sy.No.69. Thus, it

is evident that appellant held the land in excess of the

limit prescribed under proviso to Section 94-A of the Act

and therefore, is not entitled to seek regularization of

land.

- 11 -

WA No.2897 of 2019

10. In view of preceding analysis, we do not find

any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned

Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV