D. Venkatesha Gowda vs State of Karnataka and Others

M.P. Chandrakanthaiaj Urs, J.—The petitioner is a resident of Santhekallahalli village in Chintamani Taluk, Kolar District. He also claims to be the chairman of the former Village Panchayat and also founder of some educational institutions situate in that village. He is aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner as at Annexure-B by which a total extent of the acre and four guntas of land has been granted to the 3rd rcspondent-Lakshminarasimha Rao who was a former village officer. The grant purports to be one made in accordance with the provisions contained in the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. the petitioner feels aggrieved on account of the fact that the said land was donated by the said Lakshminarasimha Rao by a registered deed of gift as evidenced by Annexure-A, a true copy of the sale deed. The schedule in the sale deed describes the land as the land situate in S.No.2, dry land of one acre in extent bounded on east: by Government Kharab land; on the west by a ditch in the same survey number and the land retained by the donor in that survey number; on the north by land given to Dattashram and on the South by Government Kharab. It is further the case of the petitioner that the said land of one acre in extent was given for the specific purpose of utilizing the same in any educational scheme conductive to serve the educational needs of the Country. Therefore, giving it back to the donor by the impugned grant, the government has acted in bad faith and has deprived the Country educational advancement contemplated at the time of the gift. In the circumstance, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the grant in public interest.

The conditions in the gift deed do not control the passing of the title in favour of the donee. If the donor has voluntarily executed the deed and donee has accepted during his life time, any condition imposed on the donee for full and proper enjoyment of the property gifted becomes void while the validity of the gift deed remains intact. In that position the government to which the land was gifted was free to utilise the land in such manner as it deemed tit, even if it were to be the purpose for which the gift was made.

In the instant case, on the application of the donor the land has been re-granted. The impugned order which is at Annexure-B in the preamble portion, it states that the applicant has paid the occupancy price in respect of certain lands and has produced the. challan and therefore the land in question has been re-granted under the provisions of the Village Offices Abolition Act, as the applicant-3rd respondent was the shanubhogue of the said village. In other words, what becomes apparent is the gift apparently was made without parting with the possession of the land. If that was not the case, his acquiring occupancy rights in respect of the land would not have arisen. Therefore, when occupancy rights of the land granted in accordance with the Village Offices Abolition Act, is not questioned, this Court need not go into the validity of the gift or the purpose for which the gift was made when the donor himself applied to have the land re-granted to him as an occupant.

In that view of the matter, there does not appear to be any merit in the contention advanced for the petitioner that the government could not have re-granted this land. This petition is misconceived and it is rejected.