AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal filed against the judgment and order dated February 7, 2013, passed by an Hon''ble Single Judge, in Writ Petition No 44139 of 2011.
We are concerned with 8 acres of land in Sy No 73 of Chikkagubbi village of Bidarahalli hobli in Bengaluru east taluk, which was a kharab tank bed. There has been an inspection of the said tank, which depicted that there was no tank in existence.
One Udupi Narasimhamurthachar and his brother Rama Rao had been in enjoyment of the said 8 acres of land and were raising casuarina trees in the said land. A request was made by the brothers to the authority concerned for regularization of their occupation of the said land.
The Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, by order dated February 29, 1964, granted those 8 acres of land to the said brothers at the rate of 4 acres to each brother, inter alia, on the condition that they should vacate the land without claiming any compensation in case the authorities decided to take up restoration of the tank in question.
It is an admitted position that, from time to time, there were several transactions conveying the land in question and the property was mutated in the names of the subsequent purchasers. The subsequent purchasers of the land are paying the rates and tax in their own names.
The mutation shows that the land situates in a residential area and not in a tank or tank bed. A comprehensive master development plan was prepared under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, which, also, shows the area within residential zone.
On the prayer of the subsequent purchasers, by order dated December 30, 2008, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru district, granted conversion of the land in question for non-agricultural residential use.
On July 7, 2009, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, opined that there has been a need to re-examine the conversion order, holding that the property in question fell within the ambit of the tank bed and belonged to the State Government. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru district, by order dated May 10, 2010, unilaterally withdrew the conversion order with immediate effect.
The respondent-writ petitioner approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, challenging the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, but in vain, as his appeal came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated November 17, 2011.
Challenging the said orders, the respondent-writ petitioner filed the writ petition before this court. By the order impugned, the Hon''ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, this appeal by the State.
Dr Aditya Sondhi, learned additional advocate General, appearing for the appellants, argues that the Hon''ble Single Judge was in error in allowing the writ petition and reversing the decision of the authorities- below. He submits that the doctrine of public trust has been properly applied by the appellate tribunal and that the Hon''ble Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the said order.
Dr Sondhi draws our attention to the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of INTELLECTUALS FORUM, THIRUPATHI vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1350] that on realizing the importance of restoration of tank basins towards conservation of water and recharging of ground water, there is a need to revitalize tanks and water bodies.
We are of the opinion that the Hon''ble Single Judge did not commit any error in setting aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the appellate tribunal. Merely because the grantees gave an undertaking that they would hand over the possession of the land in question whenever the authorities desirous of restoring the tank in question does not mean that the authorities can exercise this power at any length of time. We have noticed several change of hands of the property, formation of layout and the comprehensive development plan describing the land in question as an area within the residential zone.
Mr Udaya Holla, learned senior advocate, appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, relies on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND ANOTHER vs D. NARSING RAO AND OTHERS [(2015) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 695]. The Supreme Court of India held that when there has been no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of any power, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. It was, further, observed that even in the case of fraud, necessitating exercise of power, the rule of law must run closely with the rule of life.
We are of the opinion that when there have been several changes in the ownership of the land in question and the character of the land itself has been changed, if at this distant point of time, the order of conversion is set aside, that too when the area in question has been identified within a residential zone, it will only cause prejudice to the subsequent purchasers. Moreover, we do not find, as in the case of INTELLECTUALS FORUM, THIRUPATHI [supra], any attempt on the part of the authorities to restore the tank as of today.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru district, is directed to restore the order of mutation within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, all pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they are, also, dismissed accordingly.
We make no order as to costs.