Girish vs State of Karnataka and Others

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Provisions of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ''the Act'') is a provision which at the best can enable an unauthorised cultivator in occupation and cultivation of a Government land otherwise available for grant to be granted in favour of such person.

A person not in occupation and cultivation can never put forth a claim under the statutory provisions just because the statutory provision exists.

Writ Petitioner is a person, who claims to be in unauthorised occupation and cultivation of an extent of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 9 of Nippani Village and on such basis had filed application in Form 53 to the 4th Respondent -Secretary and Tahsildar, Regularisation of Unauthorised Cultivation of Land Committee, Sagar Taluk, Sagar, Shimoga District, and also indicated that the subject land was under such unauthorised cultivation since his father''s time etc. The application was enquired into by the Committee and based on the report submitted by the revenue authorities it was found that the Petitioner was never in cultivation; that the land was not a cultivated land, but was a Government banjara bhoomi and on that premise the Committee dismissed the application as there was no scope for granting land in favour of a person not cultivating the land. The First Appellate Authority-the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the case and in revision the Deputy Commissioner did not find occasion to interfere with the order of the Assistant Commissioner, as the finding was correct, it is against such orders, the present writ petition.

Appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submission of Sri Ganapathi, learned Counsel is that all the three authorities have consistently erred in recording a wrong finding; that the subject land was and is very much under occupation and cultivation by the Petitioner etc.; that he has constructed a house and is residing therein and therefore, the matter warrants interference etc.

A finding of fact cannot be disturbed by this Court in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, unless perversity is writ large on the face of the record. No such perversity is found in the orders impugned, if the Committee has decided the matter based on relevant consideration on obtaining a report, there is no scope for interference in this petition, it is accordingly dismissed.