Ananda Rao and Another vs State of Karnataka

Per K.V. Narayana Raju, M.-This appeal under S. 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is from the order dated 27-9-1980 passed by the learned Special Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, dismissing the Appeal R.A. 11/ 80-81 from the order dated 25-7-1979 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura sub-division, Pandavapura declining to grant 0-01 gunta of land out of S. No. 18 of Hirode village, Pandavapura Taluk to each of the appellants for building purposes.

The appellants state that they have built houses on 0-02 guntas of land in S. No. 18 after obtaining the conversion orders, that the adjacent land belonging to the Government in the same survey number is suitable for their use, and therefore each may be granted 0-01 gunta of land. The Tahsildar appears to have recommended the grant. The Assistant Commissioner however has stated that Rule 18 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules authorises grant of building site only to persons who did not own house or site, and that since both the appellants had not only houses but several sites each, the land claimed could not be granted.

The appellant preferred appeals before the Deputy Commissioner contending that there was no objection to the grant of land; that they were not given an opportunity of being heard at all, etc. The learned Deputy Commissioner admitted the appeal but later passed order dated 27-9-1980 saying that the appellants'' Counsel was heard before, that since the appellants had admitted that they owned house and site, the land cannot be granted; and the appeal was consequently dismissed.

The appellants have contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner erred in rejecting the appeal without giving a hearing, and that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is otherwise opposed to law, facts and probabilities.

The Counsel for the appellants was heard. The learned Assistant State Representative has filed objections contending that the orders passed are in accordance with law and justice.

We see no merit in the contention that the appellants were entitled to grant of 0-01 gunta each out of S. No. 18. There is no doubt whatsoever that the appellants are claiming 0-01 gunta of agricultural land which has not been set apart for building purposes, No doubt they applied for non-agricultural purposes. They did not indicate the exact purpose for which the land was required. They have stated in the appeal memo that they wanted the land for constructing residential premises. It is not the case of the appellant that the land could have been granted otherwise than under Rule 18 of the Land Grant Rules.

Rule 18 of the Land Grant Rules deals with giant of building sites. Though building site is not defined in the Rules the meaning of the expression can be ascertained on a reading of S. 148 and S. 149 of the Land Revenue Act. S. 148(2) states that the Deputy Commissioner or the Survey Officer acting under sub-sec. (1) may set apart for building sites within the limits of any village, town or city, fixed under the said sub-section, any land which may be the property of the State Government and not in the lawful occupation of any person or aggregate of persons, provided that no land hitherto used for purpose of agriculture only, shall be set apart for building sites, except with the previous sanction of the State Government. S. 149 deals with the disposal of building sites by the Deputy Commissioner.

So it is obvious that the building sites contemplated by Rule 18 are only those which are within the limits of sites of villages, towns and cities and which are set apart for building sites by the Deputy Commissioner or the Survey Officer. If this basic fact had been kept in mind the Assistant Commissioner need not have taken the trouble of calling for a report from the Tahsildar. Much lab- our has been wasted and for no purpose at all. And in fact this Tribunal has held in Appeal 177/81, Giriappa v. State of Kar., (1982) KLJ. Tri. 34, that what is contemplated by R. 18 is not any land which can be used as a bunding site, but that which is within the limits of a town or a village.

No doubt the learned Deputy Commissioner has disposed of the appeal without giving a formal hearing. The appellant had no right to claim the agricultural land for use as a building site, and no Revenue Officer had the power to grant the land for the purpose claimed by the appellants. That being so we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would have been served by giving a formal hearing. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and he was not able to tell us what ground he would urge in order to succeed. Giving a hearing in such cases would be an idle formality.

For the foregoing reasons, even assuming that there is good ground for condonation of delay in preferring this appeal we have no option but to dismiss the appeal.