MAHADEV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the villagers of Halabhavi and Bammanatti villages of Belgaum taluk, Belgaum district. THEy are owning agricultural lands and cattle. THEy are questioning the order annexure ? E and F dated 15.12.2009 and 04.01.2010 passed by the Government of Karnataka and Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, respectively. By the order Annexure-E, the State Government has permitted to grant 250 acres of Gayarana (Gomaal) land for the purpose of establishing of Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (for short (ITBP) by reducingthe said extent of the land from the head of Gayarana (Gomaal) under Rule 97 (4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (for short 'the Rules'). By the order Annexure ? F, the Deputy Commissioner has directed on similar lines as ordered in Annexure ? E.

(2.) SRI. F.V. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are in violation of Rule 97 of the Rules inasmuch as it is the Deputy Commissioner who has to pass order under Rule 97 (4) of the Rules at the first instance by reducing the extent of the land form the heading of Gayarana (Gomal) below the prescribed limit; it is only thereafter the State Government has jurisdiction to pass orders thereon; that the authorities have not issued notice to the villagers at large; by relying upon the document at Annexure- G, he contends that the cattle population of 9 villages surrounding the land in question exceeds about 4000 and therefore the land in question is absolutely necessary for the purpose of grazing. Relying upon Section 71 and 72 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, it is submitted that the land in question which is specially assigned for the purpose of grazing should not be divested for any other purpose. He further submitted that the order of Deputy Commissioner is not a speaking order inasmuch as he has not applied his mind to the facts of the case before coming to the conclusion; and that apart from the lacune as mentioned above, if the land is allotted to ITBP, these petitioners and other villagers of Halabhavi and Bammannatti villagers would be put to great hardship inasmuch as there will be no adequate space for their cattle to graze.

(3.) IT is alleged that there is procedural irregularity on the part of the Deputy Commissioner in passing the order under Rule 97 (4) of the Rules. The same is negligible in the facts and circumstances of the case. As aforementioned, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 19.08.2009 had decided to reduce an extent of 250 extent from the head of Gayaran (Gomal) under Rule 97 (4) of the Rules for the purpose of granting the said 250 acres in favour of ITBP. Thus, it is clear that practically the Deputy Commissioner has decided and passed the order under Rule 97 (4) of the Rules on 19.08.2009 itself and thereafter the State Government has passed the order as per Annexure ? E dated 15.12.2009. Thus, the irregularity as alleged, if any, committed by the Deputy Commissioner stands cured in view of his earlier order dated 19.08.2009. Even assuming that it is an irregularity, the same is only a procedural irregularity and is not an illegality which is incurable. The State Government has exercised jurisdiction under Rule 97 of the Rules not only suo motto but also on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner. Hence, in view of the same, the first contention of the petitioners fails.