Kadiraiah and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

N. Kumar, J.—These appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has declined to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners/appellants have no right in the land which is the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings. The case of the appellants/petitioners in the writ petitions is they were unauthorisedly cultivating the land in question for several decades. By virtue of Section 94B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, an application in Form 53 is filed seeking regularisation of their unauthorised occupation. The Tahsildar who conducted an enquiry has submitted his report. Before it was considered by the Committee constituted for regularisation, the Government has notified the said land u/s 3 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 declaring the said land is industrial land. If only the land has been regularised in their favour they would have been entitled to compensation. Now. that opportunity was denied. In similar cases, this Court has already directed the Committee to consider regularisation and if such applicants are found entitled to regularisation, notionally to regularise the same to enable them to get compensation from the Government and similar order ought to have been passed by the learned Single Judge. But however, the learned Single Judge was of the view it is sufficient that they have enjoyed the lands as unauthorised occupants and continued to do so, till such acquisition is initiated and therefore, there is no warrant for interference with the acquisition proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeals are filed.

From the aforesaid facts, it is clear the appellants are unauthorised occupants. They have no right in the land as such. The only right they have is to seek regularisation of unauthorised occupation. Therefore, admittedly the land belongs to the Government. Now, the said land has been notified as industrial area for establishment of an Industrial Layout, which is the public purpose. As on the date the writ petitions are filed, the petitioners have no right in the land which is the subject-matter for acquisition. They cannot maintain the writ petition.

As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, as unauthorised occupant they have enjoyed Government land for sufficiently long time and therefore, they should be satisfied with that enjoyment and they are not entitled to any further rights/reliefs. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

No merits, dismissed.