Bijapur District Anti-famine Co-operative Institute Ltd. vs State of Karnataka and Others

Ravi V. Malimath, J—The petitioners claim to be the Bijapur District Anti Famine Co-operative Institute. They claim to be a charitable establishment for the purpose of fighting the famine and to carry out relief work for the residents of Bijapur. That number of fanners are their members. In order to implement the objects of the petitioner-institute, the Regional Commissioner by the order dated 06.12.1927 granted 5576 square yards of land out of CT No. 1740 of Bijapur to the said institute free of cost but on payment of annual rent of Rs. 115/- and other orders. Subsequently, by an order dated 05.02.1929 an additional area of 1024 square yards was granted out of the same survey number which was formerly granted to the District Central Cooperative Bank but not required by it, to the petitioner-institute free of cost but on payment of agricultural assessment. Thereafter by a resolution dated 12.11.1968 it was resolved that the site measuring 75 x 130 feet be leased out as a consequence to the negotiation with the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order vide Annexure-A dated 18.01.2011 passed an order for resumption of the land on the ground that the land has been used for purpose other than for it was allotted. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is erroneous. That the Deputy Commissioner was the President of the petitioner-institute. It was under him that the resolution was passed. Since he was part and parcel to the resolution, Annexure-A cannot be passed by him. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.

Learned Government Advocate by relying on the statement of objections submits that the land has been granted to the petitioner-institute free of cost. That whenever a land is granted free of cost, the same is not alienable. Secondly, that the land has been granted for a specific purpose to the petitioner-institute. If the institute uses the land for any other purpose, the grant is liable for cancellation. These are the conditions on which the grant has been made. Hence, he pleads that since the admitted position is that the land has been leased out to the Indian Oil Corporation, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order. That only because the Deputy Commissioner was the President of the petitioner-institute, does not mean that the order is vitiated. It is a fraud that has been committed on the State and hence, no interference is called for.

On hearing learned counsel, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in these petitions. The first contention of the petitioners is that the Deputy Commissioner was the President of the petitioner-institute who passed a resolution to lease out the property to the Indian Oil Corporation and therefore he cannot ask for resumption of the land. Such a contention cannot be accepted. It is immaterial whether the Deputy Commissioner was the President of the petitioner-institute and whether it was he who passed the order. The fact remains that the land has been misused by the petitioner-institute. The land has been granted to the petitioners since they espoused the cause of farmers who had suffered from famine. Rather than doing such an activity they have sought to make business of the land granted to them. They intend to make money by leasing out the property for commercial purposes. This is opposed to the condition of grant to the petitioner-institute. The land was granted free of cost by the Government for the avid purposes of the petitioners with a rider that if the land is to be used for any other purpose, the cancellation will be effected. As to who effects the cancellation, whether the Deputy Commissioner was part and parcel of the petitioner-institute is of no consequence. Fraud vitiates everything. It is a clear case of the petitioner-institute attempting to make money out of the free land given to it by the State. The State in its object to promote such activities for the welfare of the farmers have granted it to the institute. Rather than using it for the purpose, the petitioner-institute is intending to make illegal gain out of it. Such a contention therefore cannot be accepted. Such an attempt by the petitioner-institute in misusing the Government property given to it, cannot be accepted. The Deputy Commissioner was therefore fully justified in ordering for resumption. Not only should resumption take place, but the Deputy Commissioner should ensure that every bit of land given to the petitioner-institute in terms of Annexures-B and C is taken over by the State. The Deputy Commissioner or the authorized officer should also initiate proceedings against the petitioner-institute for misusing the land and trying to make a capital gain out of it. When land is granted for the benefit of the farmers, but is misused for a commercial purpose, such an action can never sustain the scrutiny of law.

It is needless to state that the question of equity or sympathy has no space in these proceedings. This is not a case where any error has occurred. It is a deliberate action of the petitioners. Knowing fully well the nature of the grant, they have intended to make a commercial gain by hiding behind the fact that the Deputy Commissioner is the President of the institute. Therefore, it presupposes that the Government would not consider any plea of the petitioner on the ground of equity or on sympathy for any future land for the petitioner-institute. They do not deserve any Government land. Under these circumstances, I find no ground to entertain these petitions. Consequently, the petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed with the aforesaid directions to the respondents.