DEVAJI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a personbelonging to Scheduled Tribe known as'Lambanies'. He has averred that he isone of the persons in whose favour theTahsildar of Yadgir Taluk in GulbargaDistrict passed an order dated 29-6-1981bearing No. REV. LRD. NCF. 20/82-83 bywhich among others his unauthorisedoccupation of certain land was regularised.But that order was not given effect tobecause the Forest Department claimedthat the land to be a forest land and onenquiries made by the DeputyCommissioner a report was submitted by theDeputy Conservator of Forests Gulbarga,informing the Deputy Commissioner byhis letter dated 14-6-1983 that thegovernment land bearing S No. 18 in thevillage of Yekkihalli, none had beencultivating the same for the last 10 years. Inthe result, the petitioner feels aggrievedby the said report of the DeputyConservator of Forests as it has come in the wayof the land being released in favour of therevenue department and therefore it shouldbe quashed.

(2.) It is wholly untenable contention.Annexure-G is a letter dated 14-6-1983 by which the 2nd respondent wasinformed that none were cultivating theparticular bit of land with which thepetitioner was concerned is no more thancorrespondence between the two officialsand that report has been submitted in viewof the letter being written by the DeputyCommissioner to the Conservator ofForests making enquiries as to whethersuch land was being cultivated. By nostretch of imagination, the letter may betermed as order which requires to bequashed by this Court under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution. Therefore, the prayerof the petitioner cannot be granted.

(3.) It was next contended by Mr.B.S. Raikote, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the land in questionhas been declared to be released infavour of the revenue authorities and assuch a mandamus may issue to the DeputyCommissioner and the 1st and 2ndrespondents, namely, the State of Karnataka andthe Deputy Commissioner of Gulbarga, togive effect the land grant (regularisation)made by the Tahsildar. When asked aboutthe declaration in that behalf, the learnedCounsel pointed out Annexure-G andclaimed that to be a declaration. Annex-ure-Ais no more than a circular issued bythe Chief Secretary to the Government ofKarnataka on the subject of regularisationof encroachments of forest lands. In thatcircular, he has pointed out that despiteseveral government orders, certain thingshad not been done and therefore he hadissued instructions to officers of theRevenue Department as well as the ForestDepartment to take proper steps toimplement the government orders underreference in the circular, issuing guide lines asto the manner in which the regularisationmust take place. That does not amountto declaration made under Sec. 28 of theKarnataka Forest Act for making grant in terms of the Land Grant Rules, 1969. If there is disobedience of any of the instructions contained in the circular as at Annexure-A dated 30th April, 1980, it is for the Chief Secretary to take proper action against those officers who have disobeyed those instructions. No writ of mandamus as such lies. Thus, the officers are not required to perform any statutory obligations or duties, nor does the circular confer any right on the petitioner which can be held to be equivalent to any statutory right. Therefore, no writ of mandamus as prayed for may issue.