M Laxman Gowda vs State of Karnataka and Others

K.V. Narayana Raju, M.-Both these appeals are from the order dated 13-11-1979 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner. Chikmagalore in No. 4. LND. CR. 154/79-80 granting 3 acres of land out of survey number 126 of Daradahalli Village, Mudigere Taluk, to respondent No. 2 Siddiah for coffee cultivation. Laxman Gowda appellant in Appeal No. 33/80 is claiming that he has been in wrongful occupation of the land granted to the respondent, that his application has not been considered and that the land has been granted to the 2nd respondent very hastily at the instance of his sister who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly. It is also said that the grant is made in violation of the Land Grant Rules. The availability list had not been prepared showing this land as available giving an opportunity to all eligible persons to apply for the grant.

Appeal No. 49/80 has been presented on 28-1-1980 by 17 persons of Daradahalli Village with an application for condonation of delay. The 1st appellant Maniga has stated in his affidavit that the learned Deputy Commissioner passed the order in question at his Mudigre Camp, that he and other appellants were not aware of the order till 19-1-1980, that he applied for a copy on the same day, that the appellants are all landless and most of them belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, that the land has been granted to 2nd respondent in disregard of the Land Grant Rules only because he had the support of his sister who Is the local M.L.A.; and that in the circumstances, the delay of a few days in filing the appeal may be condoned.

The Counsel for the appellant and the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and also the learned State Representative were heard.

A perusal of the record reveals that on 3-5-1979 the Revenue Inspector recorded the statement of the 2nd respondent Siddiah to the effect that his father Sanniah had applied for the land; that no action has been taken; that Laxman Gowda (appellant in Appeal No. 33/80) was in wrongful occupation having raised coffee plants and erected a fence. The Revenue Inspector reported to the Tahsildar on the same day about the unauthorised occupation by Laxman Gowda and wanted to know if he had preferred an appeal etc. We find in the record a letter dated 3-7-1979 from Smt. Motamma, M.L.A. addressed to (Tahsildar) Sri Thammaiah enclosing a petition, details of which are not mentioned and also stating that her brother Siddaiah had applied and the same may be considered and sent to Deputy Commissioner.

On 10-8-1979 the appellant Laxman Gowda has filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner that the land should be granted to him and not to Siddaiah. Dharkhast Memorandum has been prepared on 7-9-1979 and we find in the record an application in prescribed form signed by respondent Siddaiah bearing court fees stamp dated 10-9-1979. This will show that earlier there was no application but only the statement recorded by the Tahsildar in pursuance of the Memo served by the Tahsildar.

It also appears that the Deputy Commissioner himself sent a letter dated 2-8-1979 to the Tahsildar to send proposals for grant of land to the 2nd respondent. The Tahsildar has reported on 6-10-1979 that the 2nd respondent had been granted 3 acres in survey number 122, that Laxman Gowda had unauthorisedly raised coffee on 1 acre 26 guntas in survey number 126 and that record has been built up for granting that 1 acre 26 guntas and 1 acre 14 guntas in survey number 126 to Siddiah after evicting Laxman Gowda. It is important to notice that Laxman Gowda had not been evicted and there was only a proposal to grant after evicting him. The Tahsildar has also added at the end of the letter that land was under unauthorised occupation and so was not included in the list of lands available for disposal as on 1-7-1979.

On 27-10-1979 the learned Assistant Commissioner has returned the papers to the Tahsildar asking him to explain how the land which was not included in the availability list could be granted. There is nothing in the record to show that the Tahsildar ever sent a reply. But curiously it is seen that the learned Deputy Commissioner has referred to a letter of the Assistant Commissioner of the same date 27-10-1979 and proceeded to grant the land by his order dated 13-11-1979. He has stated that the non inclusion of the land in the availability list was only a technical omission and there was no impediment to granting the land.

Before dealing with the contentions, we may just state that there are good reasons for condoning the delay in filing the appeal No. 49/30. The appellants have contended that the grant has been made in utter disregard of the Land Grant Rules and the whole thing was done in such haste only to oblige the M.L.A. who is the sister of the 2nd respondent.

Having heard the Counsel and perused the records, we are of the opinion that even if there be no truth or substance in the contention that the grant has been made at the behest of the M.L.A., there can be no doubt whatsoever that the grant has been made in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of the Land Grant Rules. The learned Deputy Commissioner has slurred over the important question by making an observation that non-preparation of the availability list is only a technical omission. We cannot agree with such a view. Availability List is directed to be prepared and published in the village as also in the Taluk Office in order to enable all eligible persons to apply for the grant so that there is no denial of equal opportunity and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution. We are surprised how the learned Deputy Commissioner came to say that such an important provision was only a formal thing. Preparation of the list is intended to serve the substantial purpose of enabling all persons in the village to know that land is available and put forth their own claims.

In the present case. such an important requirement of law has not been complied with and is tried to be openly flouted. We cannot uphold the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner.

For the fore-going reasons, both the appeals are allowed and the order dated 13-11-1979 passed by the Deputy Commissioner granting land to the 2nd respondent is set aside.