AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mr.Justice B.S. Patil
Order dated 27.03.1999 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division, in R.A.No.11/97-98 as affirmed with some modification by the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No. 9/2000-01 vide his order dated 03.09.2001 is called in question in this writ petition. Petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the land bearing Sy. No. 40 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas situated at Mangala Village, Yedur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk of Tumkur District. He made an application seeking regularisation of the unauthorised cultivation of the land. The committee constituted for regularisation of unauthorised cultivation resolved to grant the said land vide order dated 09.08.1994. Mutation entry came to be effected based on the grant as per M.R.No.22/93-94 entering the name of the petitioner as khatedar.
The order granting the land in favour of the petitioner was called in question before the Assistant Commissioner by respondents 2 and 3 herein contending inter alia that the land was required for burial ground and the regularisation/grant made in favour of the petitioner was illegal as the petitioner was in possession of several other lands. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 27.03.1999 found that as the petitioner was holding an extent of 7 acres 36 guntas of land, he was not entitled for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation of 3 acres of Government land in Sy. No.40. The Assistant Commissioner further found that as the land was required by the villagers for burial ground, the grant made in favour of the petitioner had to be set aside. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order vide Annexure-D. This was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner contending inter alia that he did not possess/own any land much less to make him as a sufficient holder disentitling him from seeking regularisation and that the Assistant Commissioner was in error in reserving the land in question for burial ground.
The Deputy Commissioner has declined to interfere with the order cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioner. He has, however, found that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to set apart the land for burial ground as, such a power was vested with the Deputy Commissioner u/s 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Aggrieved by these two orders, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned orders and all the materials on record.
It is seen from the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner that the same is totally devoid of any reasons. Nothing is mentioned for his conclusion that the petitioner owned 7 acres 36 guntas of land and was therefore ineligible for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation of the Government land. Therefore, this order of the Assistant Commissioner suffers from patent illegality.
Insofar as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is seen that he has proceeded on the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Yediyur Hobli on 29.07.1997. It is not the case of the Revenue Authority that an extent of 6 acres 23 guntas of land is standing in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The report of the Revenue Inspector seems to suggest that an extent of 6 acres 23 guntas has been in possession of the petitioner. This report could not have been accepted by the Deputy Commissioner without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the same by leading evidence and producing necessary documents. One of the facets of the principles of natural justice is that a material collected behind the back of an individual cannot be used unless he has been furnished with the details of the material and is given an opportunity to rebut the same.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the lands which are referred to in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner are not owned by him. In the writ petition he has contended that though he has a very minor share in some of the properties, even assuming that he succeeds in getting that share, he would not be ineligible to seek regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the Government land as he would not be a sufficient holder. This is a question of fact which has to be examined by the Deputy Commissioner. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed by respondents 2 and 3 herein before the Assistant Commissioner was not maintainable, the fact remains that if any grant is obtained by suppressing material facts, the revenue authorities have the right to cancel the same. If the petitioner has indeed secured any grant of Government land by suppressing material facts though he was ineligible for such grant, then the revenue Authorities are entitled to initiate action. Therefore, this objection pales into insignificance as the revenue authorities, particularly, the Assistant Commissioner has to reconsider the matter keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in the course of this order. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner are set aside. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to reconsider the matter if he is of the view that there is any suppression of material facts while obtaining the grant of Government lands by the petitioner.