LAWS(KAR)-2001-9-20

M V GOVINDARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On September 03, 2001
M.V.GOVINDARAJ Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ). WE have heard the appellant's learned Advocate as also the learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 on merits.

(2.) THIS case has a very long history of 5 acres of land having been granted to the appellant's father in or about the year 1961 and one of the specific conditions of the grant was that the land must be brought under coffee cultivation within a period of 5 years and the Coffee Registration Certificate to be produced. The admitted position that emerges in that no CRC was produced either at that time or at any time thereafter. The appellant's explanation is that though he had applied for the crc that it was not issued on the ground that the khatha had not been transferred in his name and for this he blames the revenue authorities who had defaulted in carrying out the different requisite changes. The grant was ultimately cancelled and the appellant has unsuccessfully challenged that order both before the KAT and before the learned Single Judge.

(3.) VARIOUS submissions were canvassed before us and reliance was sought to be placed on the revenue records for the years 1970 onwards which seem to indicate that some coffee was cultivated at that point of time. However, we find that after the year 1981 no cultivation seems to have been undertaken. Before the KAT a specious explanation was put forward, initially that the cattle had eaten up the coffee plants and later on that a fire had taken place. We are not willing to accept either of these excuses. The fact remains that upto the present point of time the land has not been used for the purpose for which it was granted. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that where the grant spe-cifically imposes a certain condition and where the records unequivocally indicate that there was a breach of this condition, that no interference would be called for from this Court. The second submission canvassed is that at the time when the Deputy Commissioner passed an order in favour of the appellant and granted a temporary Saguvali Chit for one year that a condition was imposed that he should produce the CRC within that period of time. In other words, the authorities had been magnanimous enough to overlook the entire earlier records and to afford the appellant a fresh opportunity of retaining the land. We find that even on this occasion the appellant has defaulted.