RAO SAHEB Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the appellants' learned Counsel, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Government Advocate on merits. The present appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge dated 12-3-2001 whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed. The dispute is within a very narrow ambit and we shall summarise the controversy very briefly. The appellants owned a plot of land on the bank of a nala which was sold in the year 1993 to respondents 4 and 5 and has been numbered as R. S. No. 2/1 and 2/2. The nala or river in question has apparently changed course and as often happens, a piece of alluvial land has been formed between the aforesaid lands and the river and the entire dispute is with regard to this alluvial land. The respondents 4 and 5 applied for the grant of this land to them and there is some controversy as to what was the role of the appellants. It is correct to state that the record indicates that the appellants did object to the grant of the lands to the respondents 4 and 5 but the application is so worded that it also states that the lands should have been granted to them. The authorities have passed an order granting the alluvial land to respondents 4 and 5 on certain terms and conditions. Respondents 4 and 5 have deposited the amount which is equivalent to three times the assessment against the allotment and according to them they have also been put in possession.

(2.) THERE has been considerable litigation that has emanated as a result of these decisions because the appellants have challenged the grant principally on the ground that under Section 92 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964 they have the right to ask for the alluvial land in question, that they had in fact done so and that they were not given a hearing nor was their application considered. The Karnataka Appellate tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the two appeals filed by the appellants and it was against this order that they preferred the two writ petitions which were in turn dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Both the forums below have proceeded on the footing that the alluvial land could only have been offered to the respondents who were the adjoining landholders and that therefore, the authorities were not obliged to give any notice to the appellants even if they had objected or even if they had staked a rival claim. The present appeals are directed against these orders.

(3.) MR. Patil, learned Counsel who represents the appellants has submitted that the refusal to hear the appellants or rather to issue notice to them constitutes a negation of the appellants' rights. His submission is that there is a breach of procedure insofar as since the appellants had applied for the grant of the lands to them, that the authorities were obliged to consider their case along with that of the respondents 4 and 5 and that the appellants would have demonstrated that the whole or part of the alluvial land should have been allotted to them because according to Mr. Patil, the appellants have a right to ask for it. His submission is that Section 92 will have to be interpreted in such a way as to create a vested right in all those persons who are the adjoining owners on the bank or the shore and that since the appellants were owners upto 1993 that they have every right to be considered.