AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.S. Khehar, C.J.—Mr. Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Principal Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
The Petitioner is a registered association of citizens belonging to backward classes. One of the objects of the Petitioner/association is to provide houses for the poor and the needy. The Petitioner claims to be also engaged in District''s politics wherein, the Petitioner has been pursuing for better rights for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classes.
The instant writ petition has been filed, as a cause in public interest, so as to protect the rights of landless individuals, who are in the process of being allotted land for construction of houses in Bommasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that under the Ashraya Scheme, by an order dated 24.4.2008, 4 acres of unnumbered government karab land situated in Survey Nos. 1, 31, 32, 33, 272 and 273 in the village (referred to above) was earmarked for allotment as sites to the poor landless people living in the area.
The grievance of the Petitioner, as has been raised in the instant writ petition, emerges from an order dated 10.11.2009, whereby, Respondent. No. 2, i.e., the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, has required the withdrawal of the aforesaid order dated 24.4.2008, so as to earmark the 4 acres of government karab land, referred to above, along with 1 acre 38 guntas of additional karab land (adjacent to the 4 acres of land earmarked under the Ashraya Scheme) measuring in all, 5 acres and 38 guntas, for construction of a government school, playground and government health centre.
The order dated 10.11.2009, which is subject matter of challenge at the hands of the Petitioner, was purportedly passed, in exercise of the power vested in Respondent No. 2, u/s 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Section 71 afore mentioned, is being extracted hereunder:
Lands may be assigned for special purposes and when assigned, shall not be otherwise used without sanction of the Deputy Commissioner. Subject to the general orders of the State Government, Survey Officers whilst survey operations are proceeding under this Act, and at any other time, the Deputy Commissioner, may set apart lands, which are the property of the State Government and not in the lawful occupation of any person or aggregate of persons in any village or portions of a village, for free pasturage for the village cattle, for forest reserves or for any other public purpose; and lands assigned specially for any such purpose shall not be otherwise used without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner; and in the disposal of lands u/s 69 due regard shall be had to all such special assignments.
The first contention advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was based on the fundamental right vested in the citizens of this country, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a mandate to the Stale to ensure, that no person is deprived of his life and personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law. In this behalf, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that consequent upon the earmarking of 4 acres of land under the Ashraya Scheme, lists for allotment had been prepared, wherein, landless individuals were to be allotted sites for construction of residences. The instant right, which had come to be vested in those, whose names figured in the list prepared by the Respondents, has clearly, according, to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, been taken away, without due process of law.
The second contention advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, was based on the Directive Principle contained in Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India. Based on the aforesaid provision, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that it is the bounden duty of the State Government to ensure, that all citizens of the country have adequate means of livelihood, which according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, includes a. roof over their head. It is submitted, that landless people, who were included in the list of allotment, have been deprived of their right of a site under the Ashraya Scheme, and in doing so, the State Government had violated the Directive Principle enshrined in Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India.
The third contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was based on the principle of promissory estoppel. In this behalf, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that once the names of landless people had been recorded in the lists for allotment under the Ashraya Scheme, they came to be vested with civil rights. The said poor and site less people of the area could not have been deprived of the aforesaid civil rights, except in due course of law. In this behalf, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to any of those persons, whose names were included/shortlisted, for allotment of sites, under the Ashraya Scheme, before the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 came to be passed.
We have considered all the three submissions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as have been recorded hereinabove. First and fore most, it would be relevant to mention, that till formal allotment orders are issued, no individual can be deemed to have been vested with any civil rights. Since it is conceded at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that no formal allotment order had been issued to any of the landless individuals, whose names figured in the list of allotment, it stands acknowledged, that no formal rights came to be vested in any of such landless people. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to accept the applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel, and/or, to accept, that an opportunity had to be afforded'' to such landless people, before the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 was passed by the State Government.
Insofar as the validity of the impugned order is concerned, Section 71 has already been extracted hereinabove. The aforesaid provision expressly authorises the Deputy Commissioner to vary the user of land, already approved and allotted for a special reason. Even though 4 acres of land in Bommasandra Village. Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk had earlier been earmarked for allotment of sites under the Ashraya Scheme, there can be no doubt whatsoever, that u/s 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it was open to the Deputy Commissioner to change the aforesaid user. The said user has been changed in the instant case by a subsequent decision of the State Government, whereby it has now been decided to construct a government school, playground and government health centre, in an area of 5 acres and 38 guntas (including the 4 acres of government karab land reserved under the Ashraya Scheme, referred to hereinabove). The power exercised while issuing the impugned order cannot be held to be in violation of the mandate contained u/s 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept, that the impugned order dated 10.11.2009 had been passed by Respondent No. 2 without jurisdiction or authority.
Since it is not disputed, that the land under reference is now enclosed within civilization, it was just and appropriate for the State Government to have exercised its authority u/s 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964 for the user thereof as a government school, playground and government health centre. The vesting of power in the State Government, for user of land under the Ashraya Scheme, is purely discretionary. No such rights, as emerge from Articles 21 and 39(a) of the Constitution of India, can be claimed, as a matter of right. It is there fore, not possible for us, even to accept any of the contentions advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Despite the fact, that we have not concurred with the prayers made at the hands of the Petitioner, we are of the view, that it should be left open to the Petitioner to seek alternative land from the concerned authorities, in lieu of 4 acres of government karab land in Bommasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, for poor and site less persons of the area. For the aforesaid purpose, it shall be open to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority, in accordance with law.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.