K. Nagaraja Rao vs The Tahsildar

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—Petitioners herein are impugning the order dated 11.09.2006 passed by respondent No. 3 in appeal No. 13/2004-05 filed by petitioners herein, sofar as it pertains to confiscating the land bearing Sy. Nos. 881/2B and 881/2C of Venkatapura village, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District, each measuring 4 acres and together 8 acres.

The brief facts leading to this petition are as under:

The land bearing Sy. Nos. 881/2B measures 4 acres and land bearing Sy. No. 881/2C also measures 4 acres. Both are situated at Venkatapura village, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District was granted by the Government of Karnataka in favour of Sri. Shivalingappa and Sri. Gavisiddappa vide order of land grant dated 09.10.1964. The land which was granted in favour of these two persons are sold respectively in favour of one Smt. Muktabai w/o K. Rama Rao to an extent of 4 acres and another extent of 4 acres in favour of H.S. Sadgurunath Setty s/o H.S. Ramaswamy Setty, who is petitioner No. 2 herein. The entire extent of 8 acres in the aforesaid two survey numbers, were jointly sold by the grantees in favour of Muktabai and H.S. Sadgurunath Setty under a common sale deed dated 22.10.1969 for valuable consideration in a sum of Rs. 6,800/-. Pursuant to which, the land was mutated in favour of Muktabai and Sadgurunath Setty in the revenue records.

When the matter stood thus, on 01.06.1982 Muktabai died. Thereafter, an application was filed by her son K. Bindumadhava Rao seeking mutation to an extent of 4 acres in his name, which was allowed. It is seen that the said K. Bindumadhava Rao also died and thereafter, an application is made by his son seeking mutation of the said land in his name, by application dated 01.06.1992. The said application filed by Bindumadhava''s son Sri. K. Nagaraja Rao was rejected by the Tahasildar by order dated 08.06.1995, which was challenged in Appeal No. 73:95-96 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner while confirming the rejection of the change of Katha also cancelled the grant which was made in favour of Smt. Muktabai and Sri. H.S. Sadgurunath Setty on 09.10.1964, the same was subject matter of W.P. Nos. 29184-29185/1997. It is seen that, the said writ petitions came to be disposed of on 17.08.1998 in remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

In the remanded proceedings, the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and liberty was reserved to the Government to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition on the ground that in the proceedings initiated for cancellation of katha, order of resumption cannot be made. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, proceeding was again initiated by the Tahasildar in No. Bhumi:27:99-2000, wherein, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners herein, the Tahasildar by order dated 30.06.2001 cancelled the order of grant in favour of Sri. Shivalingappa and Sri. Gavi Siddappa, which was taken up in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in appeal No. BVL/Kandaya/Bhumi/Appeal/52/2002-03/and appeal No. 19/2001-02, wherein, respondent No. 2- Assistant Commissioner, while reconsidering the order of Tahasildar, allowed the appeal filed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and set aside the order of Tahasildar in cancelling the grant, relying upon the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Gavi Sidde Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, . Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary under Section 50(1)(a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 11.09.2006 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and consequently, upheld the order of Tahasildar dated 30.06.2001 in confiscating the land to the Government, which is challenged in this proceedings.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. The counsel for the petitioners would try to submit that the order of 2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner in appeal No. BVL/Kandaya/Bhumi/Appeal/52/2002-03/and appeal No. 19/2001-02 in setting aside the order of resumption passed by the Tahasildar is just and proper in the light of the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Gavi Sidde Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, and another similar judgment reported in Venkatagiriyappa Vs. The State of Karnataka Revenue Development, .

However, in response to the same, the learned Government Advocate Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani would rely upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of H.M. Hanumantharaju and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in ILR 2001 KAR 3445. Incidentally, the Court, which rendered the judgment in the matter of Gavi Sidde Gowda is the very same Bench while sitting with another Judge has rendered the present judgment.

On going through the judgments relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioners and as well as respondent Government Advocate, it is clearly seen that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners would have no bearing, inasmuch as in Gavi Sidde Gowda''s case, what was taken up for consideration by the learned Single Judge is the sale which is in violation of non-alienation clause, where the purchaser of granted land had approached the Court, contending that the grantee having not taken steps within 12 years, the same has resulted in the purchaser perfecting his title and in the matter of Venkatagiriyappa v. The State of Karnataka Revenue Department, was with reference to the cancellation of land granted in 1962, where the same was not brought under cultivation within 5 years, which action was rejected on the ground that necessary actions were not initiated by the authorities within reasonable time. In both these judgments, no ratio is laid down, it is only on the facts the aforesaid two proceedings were disposed of and finding in the aforesaid judgments would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners to challenge the resumption of land, which was purchased by them in contravention of the grant conditions.

In fact, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani, in the instant case, the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of H.M. Hanumantharaju and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another would squarely apply to the facts of the case, where, it dealt with the sale of land in contravention of clause prohibiting the alienation, which is the situation in the present litigation also, wherein, the Division Bench which dealt with H.M. Hanumantharaju''s matter relied upon the judgment rendered by another Bench in the matter of Siddaiah v. Hutchamma and disposed of holding that the cancellation of grant and resumption of land is just and proper.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3-Deputy Commissioner in appeal/13/2004-05 dated 11.09.2006 in confirming the order of Tahasildar dated 30.06.2001 in upholding the cancellation of grant and order of resumption appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, question of interfering with the same, does not arise and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

While dismissing the petition, it is made clear that, if there is any standing crop available in the lands, it is open to the petitioners herein to harvest the same before the lands are resumed to the Government.