Karnataka High Court
Sri G Rama Mohana vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
WP No. 6872 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 6872 OF 2024 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G. RAMA MOHANA,
S/O LATE NARAYANA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT LADA HOUSE,
MONTEPADAVU,
MANJANADI VILLAGE,
MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 153.
2. SRI. G. JAYAPRAKASH,
S/O LATE NARAYANA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT LADA HOUSE,
Digitally signed
by JUANITA MONTEPADAVU,
THEJESWINI MANJANADI VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MANGALURU,
KARNATAKA DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 153.
3. SRI. G.A. ARAVINDA,
S/O LATE NARAYANA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT LADA HOUSE,
MONTEPADAVU,
MANJANADI VILLAGE,
MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 153.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
WP No. 6872 of 2024
4. SRI. G.N. VISHWESHWARA,
S/O LATE NARAYANA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT LADA HOUSE,
MONTEPADAVU,
MANJANADI VILLAGE,
MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 153.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
MANGALORE - 575 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MANGALURU SUB-DIVISION,
2ND FLOOR,
TALUK ADMINISTRATIVE SOUDHA,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
4. THE TAHASILDAR,
MANGALURU TALUK,
MANGALURU,
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 219.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
WP No. 6872 of 2024
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 12.02.2024 IN NO. NAMBRA.LISS/ GERUKRUSHI
/CR/22/2023/E-274330 PASSED BY THE R-3 ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned AGA takes notice for all the respondents.
2. The petitioners, who are the children of late
Sri Narayana Bhat are before this Court being aggrieved of
the impugned order dated 12.02.2024 at Annexure-A
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru Sub
Division, rejecting their application for permanent grant of
4 acres and 40 cents of land in Sy.No.208/1 of Manjanadi
Village, Ullala Taluk.
3. Previously the petitioners were before this Court
in W.P.No.2690/2020 (KLR-LG) seeking a direction to the
respondent/authorities to grant permanent lease in favour
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
of the petitioners, having regard to the fact that
Sri Narayana Bhat was conferred temporary lease of the
land in question by order dated 14.05.1958 under the
provisions of the South Kanara District Lease of Lands for
Cashew Cultivation Rules, 1957 (for short 'the 1957
Rules'). In terms of the provisions of the said Rules, if
the lessee has cultivated the lands in terms of the grant
and has continued for a period of more than 30 years,
he/she is entitled to seek permanent grant of the land.
This Court by order dated 09.10.2023 held that the
competent authority must take note of the report of the
Assistant Commissioner dated 21.03.1995 as well as the
order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14.11.1995 and
thereafter, proceed to consider the application of the
petitioners and dispose of the same in terms of Rule 23A
of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1966 (for short 'the
1966 Rules') and this Court also directed that regard
shall be had to the extent of land bearing in mind Section
63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short
'the 1961 Act'). Consequent to the orders passed by this
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
Court the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned
order dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure-A) rejecting the
application of the petitioners on the ground that the land
in question is within the prohibited distance of 10 kms
from the boundary of the Mangalore City Corporation and
in terms of Rule 22A of the Rules, 1966, such lands which
are within the prohibited distance from the boundary of
Municipal Corporation, cannot be granted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
firstly the petitioners were ill advised to have not brought
to the notice of this Court on the earlier occasion that the
provisions contained in the Karnataka Land Grant Rules or
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of this case. In this regard, the learned
counsel seeks to place reliance on a decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
M.S. SADANANDA GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS in W.A.No.5242/004 and connected
matters. Learned counsel submits that having regard to
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
similar issues as to whether the provisions contained in
Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1969 can be made applicable
while conferring permanent grant in favour of a person
who was earlier granted temporary lease under the
provisions of Rules 1957, fell for consideration. The
Division Bench has held that having regard to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
GARAKAPATTI VEERAYYA Vs. SUBBAIAH CHOUDHARY
AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1957 SC 540 since the
lease hold rights were granted under the provisions of the
Rules 1957, they alone have statutory force in the matter
of conferment of permanent grant in favour of such
lessees. It was therefore, held that the determination of
market value of granted land must be on the basis of Rule
23 of the 1957 Rules and not Rule 17 of the 1969 Rules.
It was held that Rule 17 of the 1969 Rules are applicable
to grant of land in favour of fresh grantees, but not in
favour of lessees, who had acquired vested right under the
1957 Rules.
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
5. Recently this Court has also passed similar
orders in the case of SRI B. RATNAKAR SHETTY VS. STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.27790/2016
dated 27.02.2024. The question there was whether the
Deputy Commissioner, while conferring permanent grant
could impose the non alienation condition in terms of Rule
23 of the 1969 Rules. This Court held that for conferment
of permanent grant in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 23
where earlier temporary leases were granted, Rule 9 of
the 1969 Rules cannot be read into Rule 23. It was held
that Rule 9 pertains to grants made under the provisions
of 1969 Rules. A separate provision has been made in
Rule 23 in respect of the 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
provision of non-alienation could not have been imposed
once again for a period of 25 years.
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
Having regard to the decision of the Hon'ble Division
Bench and the recent decision of this Court in the case of
SRI B. RATHNAKAR SHETTY (supra), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the provisions contained in Rule 22
A in the matter of payment of market value or guidance
value for land granted under Rules 19 to 22 therein,
cannot be made applicable to the present case.
6. During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the
petitioners herein made a submission before this Court on
the previous occasion in W.P.No.2690/2020 that
quantification of the amount payable by the petitioners for
permanent grant may be fixed on the guidance value,
nevertheless the petitioners withdraw such a concession
that was earlier made before this Court. The learned
counsel submits that having regard to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench as noticed herein
above, a reasonable price viz., 300 times the price of the
land revenue assessed per acre, which was prevailing as
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
on the date of temporary grant may be directed to be
fixed.
7. However, the learned AGA seeks to contend
that the Assistant Commissioner has taken note of the
amendment brought to Rule 23A of the 1969 Rules by
virtue of the Karnataka Land Grants (amendment) Rules
2023 as notified on 08.03.2023. In respect of the lands
which were leased before commencement of the said
amendment Rules in respect of the leases granted
temporarily for Cashew Cultivation, it has been directed
that the Assistant Commissioner of the Sub-Division shall
grant such lands permanently on collection of the amount
equivalent to the guidance value of the land as specified
under Rule 17 of the 1969 Rules. Learned AGA would
therefore, seek to defend the impugned order passed by
the Assistant Commissioner.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that
consistent with the view taken by this Court in the case of
SRI B.RATHNAKAR SHETTY (supra), the provisions
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
contained in Rule 3 of the 1957 Rules alone are applicable
to the facts of this case and for determination of the value
for permanent grant in favour of the petitioners. Sub-rule
(1) of Rule 3 of the 1957 Rules reads as follows:-
"Rule 3(1) : Land shall be granted on thirty years
lease with option to the lessee for its renewal on
the expiry of the thirty years period in respect of
those lessees who fulfill the terms and conditions
of the grant, satisfactorily. The lessee shall also
be given the option to acquire permanent
ownership of the land on the expiry of thirty
years on payment of the value of the land fixed
at the time of the grant itself"
9. The provision therefore, is clear that the
lessee shall be given the option to acquire permanent
ownership of the land on the expiry of 30 years on
payment of the value of the land fixed at the time of grant
itself. Further, having regard to the concession made by
the petitioners before the Hon'ble Division Bench that they
would pay 300 times the price of the land revenue
assessed per acre, which was prevailing as on the date of
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
grant and accordingly several orders of permanent grant
having been conferred by the competent authority, the
same method should be adopted in the present case also.
10. In another recent decision of this Court in the
case of D.M. VIJAY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
OTHERS in W.P.No.7308/2022 dated 09.02.2024, this
Court having taken note of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench in the case of M.S. SADANANDA GOWDA
(supra) upheld the fixation of the price at the rate of 300
times of the land revenue prevailing at the time of
temporary grant and issued directions to the Deputy
Commissioner or the competent authority to fix the price
in terms of the directions given by the Hon'ble Division
Bench.
11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the Assistant
Commissioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The
Deputy Commissioner or the competent authority shall
re-fix the price having regard to the judgment of the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9119
Hon'ble Division Bench viz., 300 times the land revenue
per acre as it was 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.
12. The Deputy Commissioner or the Competent
Authority shall proceed to fix the rate in terms of the
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
NG
CT:SNN
