Karnataka High Court
Smt.Srividhya vs State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15519
WP No. 24368 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24368 OF 2021 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SRIVIDHYA,
W/O. LATE SATHYAGANAPATHI BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT PAMBATHAJE,
KAROPADY VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
signed by REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GAYATHRI P G M.S. BUILDING,
Location: High DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
Court of
Karnataka BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.K. MANGALORE -575 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANTWAL TALUK,
BANTWAL, D.K. - 574 219.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15519
WP No. 24368 of 2021
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 TO
GRANT THE SCHEDULE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
IN VIEW OF COMPLIANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THE LEASE DEED OF THE YEAR 1957GRANT AN INTERIM
ORDER OF STATUS QUO IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.251/1,
MEASURING 2 ACRES 11 CENTS, SY.NO.252/2 MEASURING AN
EXTENT OF 1 ACRES 80 CENTS AND SY.NO.252/2 MEASURING
AN EXTENT OF 11 ACRES 96 CENTS OF KAROPADY VILLAGE,
PUTTUR NOW IN BANTWAL TALUK JURISDICTIONPOST THIS
W.P. FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING BEFORE SINGLE JUDGE.v
DTD-29.12.2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus
directing the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner,
Dakshina Kannada District to pass orders for permanent
grant in respect of Sy. Nos.251/1, 252/2 and 272,
measuring 2 Acre 11 cents, 1 Acre 80 cents and 11 Acre
96 cents respectively, all situated at Karopady Village,
Bantwal Taluk having regard to the fact that earlier
temporary lease was granted in favour of the mother-in-
law of the petitioner, on 29.05.1958.
NC: 2024:KHC:15519
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this Court has recently dealt with a similar matter in WP
No.6872/2024 and directed the Deputy Commissioner to
grant the land by collecting 300 times the land Revenue.
Learned counsel prays for similar orders.
3. Having regard to the contentions raised by the
petitioner and having regard to the recent decision of this
Court in the case of G.RAMA MOHANA AND OTHERS
V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA and others in
W.P.No.6872/2024 dated 05.03.2024, it is clear that
several contentions raised at the hands of the respondents
revenue authorities have been considered by this Court. It
was contended on behalf of the respondent revenue
authorities that the land in question is within prohibited
distance of 10 kms from the boundary of the Mangaluru
City Corporation and in terms of Rule 22A of the Rules,
1966, and such lands which are within the prohibited
distance from the boundary of the corporation cannot be
granted.
NC: 2024:KHC:15519
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that although this Court has rejected such
contention made on behalf of the respondent revenue
authorities, nevertheless in the present case it is not the
contention of the respondents that the land in question is
within the prohibited distance in terms of Rule 22A of the
Rules, 1966.
5. The next issue that was considered by this
Court was regarding the imposition of non alienation
condition in terms of rule 23 of the Karnataka Land Grant
Act 1969. This Court noticed that a separate provision has
been made in Rule 23 in respect of a temporary lease
granted prior to the commencement of the 1969 rules. It
was therefore held that it would be impermissible for the
Deputy Commissioner to invoke rule 9 and impose a
condition of non alienation for a period of 25 years, since
the conferment of temporary lease was made decades ago
and provisions of non alienation could not have been
imposed once again for a period of 25 years.
NC: 2024:KHC:15519
6. In the matter of fixation of the value, this Court
took note of the decision of a Division Bench in the case of
M.S.SADANANDA GOWDA V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS in writ appeal No.5242/2004 and connected
matters and held that fixation of the price at the rate of
300 times the land revenue prevailing at the time of
temporary grant is to be applied.
7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
Deputy Commissioner or the Competent Authority shall fix
the price having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench, viz., 300 times the land revenue per acre
prevailing as on the date of temporary grant. It is made
clear that the application shall not be rejected on the
ground that the land in question is within the prohibited
distance from the boundary of the Mangaluru City
Corporation, since the said provision is not applicable to
the facts and circumstances of this case.
8. The Deputy Commissioner or the Competent
Authority shall proceed to fix the rate in terms of the
NC: 2024:KHC:15519
directions issued by this Court, inform the petitioners
about the rate fixed and give reasonable time to the
petitioners to pay the same. The entire exercise shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RMS
