Smt. Ratnamma vs The Deputy Commissioner and Others

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioner has sought for an order to quash Annexures-D, E and K and to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to reconsider the application filed by her to grant the land in her favour.

According to the petitioner, she was in possession and cultivation of the land in Sy. No. 139, Seesandra Village measuring 2 acres 19 guntas and also made an application for grant of land to the Land Grant Committee and the said committee recommended for grant of land in her favour. However, the Tahsildar, by an endorsement, declined to grant the land in favour of the petitioner stating that there is less gomal land in Seesandra Village. It is her further contention that in view of the representation submitted by the 3rd respondent herein, the 4th respondent granted permission to the 1st respondent to grant the gomal land in Sy. No. 139 of Seesandra Village, which is contrary to the law.

What is being noticed is that the gomal land is said to have been granted in favour of the 3rd respondent for public purpose. The difficulty expressed by the Tahsildar insofar as granting land to the extent of 2 acres 19 guntas in Sy. No. 139 to the petitioner is the availability of gomal land is to a lesser extent, as such, there is no scope for granting occupancy rights to the petitioner.

Insofar as granting of land to the extent of 25 acres and 5 acres respectively to the Bangalore University and to the 3rd respondent is concerned, it is on priority and for public purpose. It is seen that as per Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, no land which is within 18 kms from the outer radius of the city, could be granted to the unauthorised occupants and moreover, no land is said to be available for allotment to the petitioner. In the circumstances, there is no scope for allotment of land in Sy. No. 139 as sought for to the petitioner. It appears there is no arbitrary action in respect of the granting of lands by the respondents-authorities. However, it is for the petitioner to seek his remedy elsewhere if it is available, in accordance with law.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.