Devaji vs State of Karnataka and Others

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.-The petitioner claims to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe known as ''Lambanies''. He has averred that he is one of the persons in whose favour the Tahsildar of Yadgir Taluk in Gulbarga District passed an order dated 29-6-1981 bearing No. REV. LRD. NCF. 20/82-83 by which among others his unauthorised occupation of certain land was regularised. But that order was not given effect to because the Forest Department claimed that the land to be a forest land and on enquiries made by the Deputy Commissioner a report was submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests Gulbarga, informing the Deputy Commissioner by his letter dated 14-6-1983 that the government land bearing S. No. 18 in the village of Yekkihalli, none had been cultivating the same for the last 10 years. In the result, the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said report of the Deputy Conservator of Forests as it has come in the way of the land being released in favour of the revenue department and therefore it should be quashed.

It is wholly untenable contention. Annexure-G is a letter dated 14-6-1983 by which the 2nd respondent was informed that none were cultivating the particular bit of land with which the petitioner was concerned is no more than correspondence between the two officials and that report has been submitted in view of the letter being written by the Deputy Commissioner to the Conservator of Forests making enquiries as to whether such land was being cultivated. By no stretch of imagination, the letter may be termed as order which requires to be quashed by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted.

It was next contended by Mr. B.S. Raikote, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the land in question has been declared to be released in favour of the revenue authorities and as such a mandamus may issue to the Deputy Commissioner and the 1st and 2nd respon- dents, namely, the State of Karnataka and the Deputy Commissioner of Gulbarga, to give effect the land grant (regularisation) made by the Tahsildar. When asked about the declaration in that behalf, the learned Counsel pointed out Annexure-G and claimed that to be a declaration. Annexure-A is no more than a circular issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka on the subject of regularisation of encroachments of forest lands. In that circular, he has pointed out that despite several government orders, certain things had not been done and therefore he had issued instructions to officers of the Revenue Department as well as the Forest Department to take proper steps to implement the government orders under reference in the circular, issuing guide lines as to the manner in which the regularisation must take place. That does not amount to declaration made under Sec. 28 of the Karnataka Forest Act for making grant in terms of the Land Grant Rules, 1969. If there is disobedience of any of the instructions contained in the circular as at Annexure-A dated 30th April, 1980, it is for the Chief Secretary to take proper action against those officers who have disobeyed those instructions. No writ of mandamus as such lies. Thus, the officers are not required to perform any statutory obligations or duties, nor does the circular confer any right on the petitioner which can be held to be equivalent to any statutory right. Therefore, no writ of mandamus as prayed for may issue.

The entire writ petition is misconceived and it is rejected without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to move the appropriate authorities in the government to see that the order made in his favour is given effect to.

In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

This order is made ex parte the respondents who have not entered appearance though served.

The writ petition is rejected.

Writ Petition Rejected.