Smt. Kanyamma vs State of Karnataka

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioner''s grievance is that the saguvali chit is not being issued despite the granting of the land to the petitioner.

Sri Vishwanath H.M., the learned Counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice the official memorandum dated 10-10-2005 (Annexure-C) granting the land to 10 persons. He submits that the petitioner''s name is at Sl. No. 10 in the said memorandum. He also brings to my notice that the saguvali chit is already issued to the grantee, namely, Chennamma in respect of the land situated at Survey No. 59 of Kuduregere Village.

Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned endorsement is issued, as the land now falls within the city limits of Bengaluru in view of the amendment brought to Sections 94-A and 94-B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (''the said Act'' for short).

The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the 10 grantees as per the official memorandum dated 10-10-2005 (Annexure-C). It is also not in dispute that all the 10 grantees are given the land varying from 4 guntas to 2 acres in the land at Survey No. 59. It is also not in dispute that one Chennamma is already issued the saguvali chit in respect of a portion of the land standing at Survey No. 59 of Kuduregere Village only.

It is trite that the similarly placed persons cannot be treated dissimilarly. Issuing of saguvali chit to some grantees and denying the same to the other similarly placed grantees offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Revenue Authorities are not justified in denying the issuance of the saguvali chit, when the land grant itself is intact. On the ground that the amended proviso forbids the granting of the land within specific distance from the boundaries of the City Municipalities, the petitioner cannot be denied of the relief of direction for the issuance of saguvali chit. The second proviso to Section 94-A of the said Act reads as follows:

''''Provided further that no land shall be granted in the areas lying within the limits of Cities and City Municipalities specified in column (2) of the Table below and within the distance from such limits specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) thereof."

The plain reading of the afore-extracted proviso shows that there is an embargo on granting the land, but the same cannot be stretched to mean that the saguvali chit cannot be issued even in cases, where the grant itself is before the commencement of the afore-extracted amended provisions.

It is also trite that no amendment can be put into operation retrospectively unless the amended Act itself provides for the same expressly or by implication. It is profitable to refer to this Court''s decision in the case of Rama Naik v. The Deputy Commissioner, Koppal and others, ILR 2007 Kar. 1521. Paragraph No. 5 and relevant portion of paragraph No. 6 are extracted here in below:

"5. I do see some force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. If the land has been regularised in favour of the petitioner, prior to declaring Gangavati Town as City Municipality and if an amendment has been brought into the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, subsequent to the order of regularisation for issuance of saguvali chit, the Tahsildar is not expected to apply the subsequent developments. What is required to be considered is whether the Committee had power to regularise it in accordance with the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on the date of consideration of the application of the petitioner.

......Issuance of saguvali chit is only an incidental one. It is only a procedure to be followed by the office."

For all the aforesaid reasons, I allow this petition by quashing the impugned order and by directing the fourth respondent Tahsildar to issue the saguvali chit to the petitioner prescribing such conditions as are permissible in law. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of four months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today''s order.