AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The present appeal is filed by the government challenging the order passed in WP No.101720 of 2024, dated 15.04.2024.
The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ proceedings for the purpose of convenience.
The petitioner, who is the landlord and owner of the property bearing RS No.169/3+4/B/1, measuring 3 acres 7 guntas situated at Mudhol village, had filed the writ petition challenging the validity of the endorsement dated 10.04.2023 at Annexure-F. In terms of the said endorsement, the Land Acquisition Officer had rejected the request for payment of compensation for 6 guntas, observing that the cultivable land, which was acquired was 3 acres and the 6 guntas was pot kharab land. The said endorsement was challenged before the learned Single Judge on various grounds including that what was acquired was 3 acres as evidenced by the revenue records at Annexure-B for an extent of 6 guntas which stood in the name of the petitioner and as the remaining land of 6 guntas belonging to the petitioner was utilized, he was entitled for compensation for such land. Learned Single Judge by a detailed order has allowed the petition and the reasoning is contained at para-7 to 10, which is extracted below:
“7.It is not in dispute that land bearing R.S.No.169/3+4/B/1 of Mudhol village totally measuring 3 acres 7 guntas. Out of which, 1 gunta of land is already acquired under a notification. Subsequently, another notification was issued and 3 acres of land was acquired for UKP Project. Thus, 6 guntas of land was remaining in the said survey number. Now, it is the contention of the petitioner that without acquiring the said 6 guntas of land, the respondent has forcibly made use of the land and when the petitioner submitted a representation seeking compensation, the impugned endorsement was issued to the effect that the said 6 guntas of land is pot kharab and no compensation is payable to the petitioner.
8.Annexure-B is the record of rights of the year 2011-12. According to which, the total extent of land in R.S.No.169/3+4/B/1 of Mudhol village is 3.07 acres. Out of which, 3.01 acres was acquired by the respondent and the remaining 6 guntas of land was standing in the name of the petitioner. Annexure-C is the mutation entry No.1166 mutating the name of the petitioner in respect of 6 guntas of land in R.S.No.169/3+4/B/1. Annexure-B is the record of rights for the year 2023-24 showing the name of the SLAO in respect of said 6 guntas of land, deleting the name of the petitioner. Annexure-E is the representation submitted by the petitioner for payment of compensation in respect of 6 guntas of land and Annexure-F is the endorsement issued by the SLAO to the effect that since 6 guntas of land referred to above is pot kharb land, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. There is absolutely no basis to classify 6 guntas of land as pot kharab. The revenue records produced by the petitioner as per Annexure-B did not disclose 6 guntas of land as pot kharab. Moreover, the name of the petitioner was mutated as per Annexure-C as the owner in possession of the land measuring 6 guntas.
9.Learned HCGP produced copy of Form No.11 to contend that 6 guntas of land is pot kharb. This document is issued during April, 2024. It is not made clear as to what was the basis for classifying this 6 guntas of land as pot kharab and there is absolutely no explanation as to why there is no reference to pot kharab in the revenue records. If at all, 6 guntas of land was pot kharab land, how the name of the petitioner was came to be mutated in the revenue records as per Annexure-C. Therefore, I do not find any reasonable ground for deleting the name of the petitioner and entering the name of the SLAO in the revenue records as per Annexure-D. Learned HCGP submitted that land in question falls within the jurisdiction of SLAO, UKP, Bilagi and not SLAO, UKP, Jamkhandi.
10.Learned HCGP failed to explain as to why and when the said 6 guntas of land was classified as pot kharab and whether it is ‘A’ or ‘B’ pot kharab land. Under such circumstances, the right of the petitioner over 6 guntas of land in question to claim compensation cannot be denied by issuing Annexure-F. Hence, the said endorsement is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i)The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The endorsement dated 10.04.2023 produced as per Annexure-F is quashed.
iii) Respondent-SLAO, UKP, Bilagi is directed to determine the compensation and pay compensation to the petitioner in respect of 6 guntas of land referred to in the petition, as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
The learned Single Judge observes that there was no basis for classifying 6 guntas of land as pot kharab land. The fact that an extent of 3 acres of land belonging to the petitioner which was notified is not in dispute. The land that was notified for acquisition was in RS No.169. A perusal of the award at Annexure-A would indicate that what was notified was an extent of 3 acres in RS No.169/3+4/B/1 and market value was also calculated insofar as 3 acres while 6 guntas was shown as pot kharab land.
It is also not in dispute that the extent of 6 guntas was also made use of and the petitioner is kept away from the enjoyment of said extent.
The Aakarbandh is the conclusive document insofar as nature of kharab is concerned. The said document is produced as Document No.5 along with IA No.5 of 2025 by the State by way of additional documents. The said Aakarbandh would reveal that the extent of the petitioner's property was 3 acres 7 guntas, out of which, 6 guntas was shown in Column-10 of the Aakarbandh as Kharab. The said aspect is not in dispute. The classification of Kharab in Column-10 classification would indicate as A-kharab or B-kharab. Further if it is unclassified, it would be shown as C-Kharab.
In the present case, the extent of Kharab is clearly shown as 6 guntas and the nature of Kharab is shown as A-Kharab. It is clear that Kharab which is shown as A-Kharab runs with the land and belongs to the owner. If that were to be so, the Aakarbandh settles the issue.
The ownership of A-kharab As belonging to the owner of the land has been considered and observations made in the case of the State of Karnataka rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Another Vs. Istaq Ahmad Muhammedsaheb1 reads as follows:
“12.As can be seen, when unarable land is classified as 'Pot Kharab', meaning that it is not brought under cultivation and that no land revenue is paid in respect of such land any further classification in sub-Clause (a) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of the 1966 Rules, it is evident that if it is unarable and unfit for agriculture and may include farm buildings or threshing floors of the holder, it would form part of larger extent of land, held by the owner and would run with the land. Nodoubt, it would be unarable land and no land revenue is paid on the same, but ownership of the land would continue with the land owner. If it is classified as under sub-Clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of the 1966 Rules, it would be utilised for a public purpose and no individual would have any claim over the same and it would be used for purposes such as for road or footpath or a tank or a stream or burial ground or cremation ground or for village potteries.
13.In the present case on hand, the State has not produced any material to indicate that it was being used for any of the purposes as are contemplated under sub-Clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of the 1966 Rules, in the absence of which it cannot be said that the State is justified in claiming that the land would be classified under sub-Clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of the 1966 Rules, as aforesaid.”
Accordingly, it is clear that the ownership of A Kharab continues to remain with the owner.
Further it must be noticed that admittedly, the extent of 6 guntas was shown in the revenue records as standing in the name of the petitioner in terms of RTC for the year 2011-12 at Annexure-B. The transfer of revenue records insofar as 6 guntas, which was standing in the name of the petitioner as per Annexure-B, subsequently into the name of the SLAO, as reflected in the mutation at Annexure-C, was prima facie impermissible in light of the nature of kharab as revealed in the Aakarband.
Accordingly, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is rejected. In light of the same, the endorsement at Annexure-F stands quashed and the order of the learned Single Judge stands affirmed.
While affirming the order of the learned Single Judge, the State Authorities are granted three months time from today for quantifying the compensation and paying the same to the petitioner while calculating the compensation as per the prevailing law.
The contempt proceedings are dropped reserving liberty for the petitioner to initiate proceedings if the State does not take steps as indicated.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not calling for adjudication .
Footnotes
- 1.ILR 2016 KAR 98