AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The Petitioners have filed this public interest petition assailing the grant of gomal land in Sy. No. 26 and 27 of Kasavanahalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. By the impugned orders, the Special Deputy Commissioner has granted an extent of 22 acres and 23 guntas in favour of the third Respondent, while the fourth Respondent has been granted an extent measuring 20 acres 6 guntas.
The Petitioners, claiming to be agriculturists and residents of the said village, contend that the village consists of more than 500 families and there are 1500 heads of cattle and about 1000 sheep and 300 goats depending on the gomal land for the purpose of grazing. It is therefore contended that there is no Government land available in the said village, to be granted for any public purpose and despite the said fact, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are outsiders to the area have obtained grant of the valuable lands. The grant in favour of Respondent No. 3 was approved to be made at the concessional rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre and insofar as Respondent No. 4, it was at Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. The said lands have thereafter been granted in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide Annexures-B and F respectively. The Petitioners are therefore seeking to assail the same.
The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the granting authority have filed their objection statement seeking to justify their action by referring to the procedure followed before granting the land. The nature of the land which was available for the purpose of grant, and the satisfaction of these Respondents with regard to the activities of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and also the manner in which the lands in question have been put to use by the grantees is also adverted to. The Respondents have also questioned the bonafide of the Petitioners and have contended that the petition has not been instituted in public interest.
The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have also filed their respective objection statement. Respondent No. 3 contends that it is a registered Public Charitable Trust and the activities of the Trust is referred to in detail. It is their contention that the Government after examining ail aspects of the matter and in due compliance of the procedure required to be followed in law has granted the land. The manner of utilization of the land is also adverted to in detail. Respondent No. 4 contends that it is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and is established on 24.09.1925. The said Respondent has also referred to procedure followed by the Government for allotment. It has further referred to the activities of the society and the manner in which the allotted land is being used for the benefit of the public. The said Respondent has also referred to the unsuccessful attempt by certain other persons in challenging the grant in their favour.
Heard Sri N. Shankaranarayan Bhat, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri C. Prakash and Sri G. Papi Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively and perused the petition papers.
Though the Respondents have questioned the locus-standi of the Petitioners as persons not being agriculturists and not residing in the village, it is seen that the present petition is claimed to be in public interest and violation of statutory provision in making the grant is alleged. Hence, the said allegations in any event requires consideration by this Court on its merits.
The principal ground of attack is that the lands in Sy. Nos. 26 and 27 of Kasavanahalli village arc gomal lands and the grant is contrary to Sections 71 and 72 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''KLR Act''). In this regard, the contention is that the land in question is reserved for free pasturage and since the village consists of 1500 heads of cattle and also sheep and goats, the same is to be retained for such purpose. It is contended that the procedure contemplated to reduce or extinguish the gomal land has not been followed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions, in the case of K.P. Manjunath and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. AIR 1976 Kar 158 and in the case of C. Kenchappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. ILR 2000 Kar 1072. In the first-of the above cited cases, the issue no doubt was with regard to the procedure that is required to be followed for the purpose of diverting the gomal land. However, the question in the case on hand is, as to whether the land in question can still be considered as gomal land even as on the date of grant merely because it was classified as such at an earlier point. Further, in the latter of the cited cases, the conclusion therein was reached in a circumstance where the lands in question which were earlier classified as gomal lands, green belt and earmarked for residential purpose in the Comprehensive Development Plan were subsequently acquired for industrial purpose. But, in the instant case, considering the nature of defence put forth, wherein it is contended that the land in question had lost its character of gomal land, the matter requires examination in that context. As such, the situation not being analogous to each other, in the case on hand, and in the cited decisions, the same will not assist the Petitioners.
In that background, it is to be noticed that even though the Petitioners have contended that the land has to be preserved as gomal lands, except for the bald assertion, they have not placed any material on record to establish that the surrounding lands had remained as agricultural lands even as on the date of the grant and that there existed cattle, sheep and ether animals to the extent as pleaded in the petition. Instead, the very ground No. 6 raised in the petition to contend violation of Rule 10 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ''KLG Rules, 1969'') would indicate that it is the admitted case of the Petitioners that the land in question is in the vicinity of the Bangalore City Corporation. In the present circumstance, in any event. Rule 10 is not violated since the assailed grant is not for agricultural purpose. In such situation, the position that the land in question are urban lands cannot be disputed by the Petitioners.
On the other hand, the Respondents have contended that the lands in question had lost the characteristics of gomal lands and as such, there was no requirement to either reduce or extinguish the gomal land by following the procedure contemplated in Rule 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ''KLR Rules). No doubt, in the order dated 22.06.2001 whereunder the Government granted approval for grant in favour of the Respondent No. 4, it is indicated that approval is accorded for grant after reducing the gomal land. But in the present facts, that in itself does not lead to a conclusion that there has been non-compliance of the procedure. Such indication appears to have been made in usual course. We find that, to be so, since, in the order dated 20.09.2000 made in favour of the third Respondent in respect of another portion of land in the same survey numbers there is no such observation, even though the order is at an earlier point in time. Further, the report dated 03.05.2000 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner to the Special Deputy Commissioner while examining the proposal, refers to the location of the said land as being within 18 kms distance from Bangalore City Corporation and being situated on the side of the public road leading from Bangalore-Sarjapura road and passing through the new prison in Naganathapura. It is in that context, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have referred to that aspect in their objection statement and have stated that it is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bangalore Development Authority.
The above contentions relating to the nature of land as on the date of grant has been buttressed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with reference to documents. In that regard, reference is made to Annexure-R-11, which is the copy of the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) approved by the Government on 05.01.1995. In the said CDP, the area in question, in Kasavanahalli is indicated as residential zone, which includes places of public worship, schools and education purpose. It is also seen that vast extent of lands in the vicinity including certain lands in Sy. Nos. 26 and 27 of Kasavanahalli were notified for acquisition by Bangalore Development Authority for formation of road as indicated in the public notice dated 11 08-2003 as at Annexure-R-12.
In the background of the above contentions, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has also referred to Section 76M of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''KT & CP Act'') which reads as hereunder:
76-M. Effect of other Laws.- (1) Save as provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act and the rules, regulations and bye-laws made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any such other law.-
(a) when permission for development in respect of any land has been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained;
(b) when permission for such development has not been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has been obtained.
The learned Counsel has also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Deputy Commissioner Vs. Narayanappa, wherein it is held that in view of the overriding effect vide Section 76M of KT & CP Act, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under the KLR Act gets ousted and in such situation, permission could be obtained or secured only from the Planning Authority under KT & CP Act. Further, the case of H. Puttaiah and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, . Is referred to contend that Gomal land which has lost its characteristics due to the topography and location can be granted to religious and charitable institutions in exercise of the power available to the Government under Rule 27 of the KLG Rules, 1969.
Having given our consideration to the above facts involved and the contentions thereto, we are of the view that even though the lands in question were initially classified as gomai lands at a time when it was in the village limits, it had thereafter lost its characteristics of gomal land due to the growth of Bangalore City and its location being within 18 kms. This is evidenced by the fact that the lands in Kasavanahalli came to be included in the residential zone in the Comprehensive Development Plan approved on 05.01.1995. Such zoning of land use and regulations made for the Bangalore Local Planning Area under the provisions of the KT & CP Act, would be governed by the provisions of that Act, since it would have overriding effect as provided u/s 76M. Hence, in the instant case, the grant made subsequently on 12-01-2001 and 01-10-2001 is not governed by the provisions contained in the KLR Act ao it would stand ousted. As such, the contention of the Petitioners that there is violation of Sections 71 and 72 of the KLR Act for non-compliance of Rule 97(4) of the KLR Rules does not commend to us.
In the above backdrop, the next aspect for consideration is as to whether the procedure contemplated in law has been followed in making the grant. In this regard, a perusal of Rule 27 of the KLG Rules, 1969, would indicate that it empowers the State Government to either suo-motu or on recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to order grant of land. It also provides for just and reasonable relaxation of the Rules in appropriate cases, subject to such conditions to be specified in the order. In the instant case, in exercise of such power, the State Government has obtained the revenue report and thereafter considered the object for which Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had sought for grant and in that regard has fixed the reduced upset price and has accorded permission as per the Government Orders dated 20.09.2000 and 22,06.2001 respectively. Pursuant thereto the Special Deputy Commissioner by respective orders dated 12-01-2001 and 01-10-2001 has made the grant in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 imposing the conditions contained therein to monitor the utilization of land for the purpose for which it was granted. Though the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have referred to the manner in which the land has been utilized, it is an aspect, which should be looked into by the State Government and the same need not be considered at this juncture, in this petition as there is no allegation nor material with regard to violation of any of the conditions. Therefore, with regard to the giant also, we do not find any infirmity since the procedure as contemplated in law has been followed.
Before parting, one more aspect of the matter which is required to be adverted to, is that certain persons claiming right to the property under an earlier grant had questioned the grant made in favour of the Respondent No. 4 herein as being incompetent. The same arose for consideration in WP. No. 40786/2004 and the Petitioners therein were not successful in assailing the grant in favour of the Respondent No. 4 as the petition was dismissed on 17.02.2009. The said order attained finality before a Division Bench of this Court on 17.06.200S in W.A. Nos. 592 to 601/2009. Though it is contended by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 that the unsuccessful Petitioners therein have engineered the present petition in the nature cf public interest, we do not find it necessary to go into that aspect of the matter in view of the conclusion already reached by us on other aspects of the matter.
In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.