M LAXMAN GOWDA Vs. TAHSILDAR MUDIGERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On preliminary hearing The ground on which the impugned eviction notice issued under S. 94 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is challenged is that, by virtue of his unauthorised possession he has raised plantation crop and application filed for grant is pending consideration, even before the disposal of the application; if evicted, he would be put to irreparable loss and prejudice.

(2.) Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that unless his application for grant is disposed of, the authorities have no jurisdiction to evict him or to issue the impugned order. If S. 94-A were in force, probably it had relevance, because after eviction, question of regularisation will not arise. The Court may be right if it directed the authorities to defer eviction proceedings pending disposal of the application for grant. After the deletion of S. 94-A no person in unauthorised possession can claim, as of right, regularisation. Hence, I find nothing wrong in the impugned notice. S. 94(3) provides for eviction of unauthorised occupants. So also S. 104 provides for summary eviction of person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land belonging to the Government notwithstanding the provisions contained in Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1961.

(3.) It is not the case of Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty that he is in lawful possession of the property. Admittedly, the land belongs to the Government in respect of which he has made his claim for grant. Under R. 3 of the Land Grant Rules, the land available for grant has to be notified by the concerned authorities. Normally, the person eligible under the Rule can claim a grant in his favour. Till then, nobody has got a right to claim the property of the Government. In this context, it is also necessary to refer R. 26 of the Land Grant Rules which states that nothing contained in these Rules shall be deemed to confer on any person any right to the grant of the land. Mere filing of an application cannot act as a shield for protection of unauthorised possession. In the absence of any right to continue in possession of the property, the authorities were well within their rights in ordering eviction and I find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution.