Rajappa vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Jawad Rahim, J.—The petitioners'' claiming to be in cultivation of the Government Land unauthorisedly bearing Sy. No. 58 of Maradi Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District measuring 2 acres sought regularisation of their unauthorised occupation under the benevolent provisions of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Their application was processed by the Tahsildar (Secretary of the Committee) and the Committee considered it on merit and resolved to recommend grant of land to the petitioners as indicated in the recommendation of the year 2004.

Undoubtedly, the resolution passed by the committee is after considering their representation/application filed by the petitioners. But they were not aware of the order. They were, thus in W.P. Nos. 2306 to 2608 of 2012 and W.P. No. 2309 of 2012 before this Court.

This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Tahsildar to process the application filed by the petitioners to be considered by the committee vide Annexure-F, dated 2-2-2012. Later the petitioners realised their writ action was exercise in futility, as the committee had already considered their application favourably by its resolution dated 30-9-2003. In the said resolution, the committee resolved to allow the application of 11 persons as is recorded in the proceedings of the committee in the month of October 2004 in No. RUAO/CR/1484/99-2000-Annexure-F. In pursuance to the committees'' resolution survey has been conducted of Sy. No. 58 for ascertaining the actual physical possession of the applicant for further action. Sketch prepared is at Annexure-G.

Despite such resolution of the committee, the third respondent-Tahsildar has failed to issue grant order and Saguvali Chit as is required under the amended provisions of Rule 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rule, 1966.

Sri Rudragowda would refer to earlier resolution of the committee in the year 1994-95 based on which Saguvali Chits have been issued. He refers to the grant certificate in favour of Dummibasamma vide. Annexure-H and subsequent change of revenue records in her name as per the list of grantees as indicated in para 19 of the writ petition.

Thus, it could be seen the recommendation of the committee constituted by the Government has exercised power conferred under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and has passed resolution recommending regularisation of occupation of the petitioner entitling them appropriate order as referred to and as envisaged in Rule 108-C of the Rules. The grievance of the petitioners is fully justified as the very provision indicates, upon consideration of the application, when the committee constituted for the purpose recommends grant, all that the Tahsildar, who is Secretary of the Committee, has to do is to follow the mandate of Rule 108-C, issue an order of grant and issue certificate of grant or saguvali chit in Form VII specified under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. This is the statutory duty on the Tahsildar which in the present case, he has failed to discharge. Thus, I am satisfied the petitioners'' have made out a case for exercise of writ jurisdiction to issue direction in the nature of mandamus to the Tahsildar to implement the recommendation of the Land Grant Committee granting regularisation of occupation of the petitioners and issue grant certificate/saguvali chit etc. as envisaged under Rule 108-B of the Rules within the outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Rule issued is made absolute.

Writ petition is allowed.

Learned Government Advocate Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.