H PUTTAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE h. Puttaiah and another claiming to be the residents of channanayakanapalya village, doddabidarakallu dakhale, yeshwanthapura hobli and thippenahalli village, yeshwanthapura hobli respectively have filed this petition as public interest litigation. It is stated that the land bearing sy. No. 64 measuring 40 acres 12 guntas is a government gomal land reserved for grazing purpose of the livestocks of all the villages of doddabidarakallu, thippenahalli and channanayakanapalya and also the neighbouring villages like nallakadaranahalli, kariobanahalli, thirumalapura and chikkabidarakallu. R. t. c. extracts for the years 1997-98 and 2000-01 have been produced at Annexures-a and b respectively at their translated copies at Annexures-a1 and b1. It is stated that there is no other gomal land except the land in sy. No. 64 in the village is available for grazing. It is stated that the population of the aforesaid three villages is 10,000 and the villagers are agriculturists and that all the survey numbers of doddabidarakallu village comes under the 'green belt area' as per the comprehensive development plan, bangalore. It is stated that on an application being filed by the 4th respondent for grant of land in sy. No. 64 in its favour, the 1st respondent without calling for any objections from the villagers has passed an Order dated 15-7-1997 directing the 2nd respondent to hand over possession of 10 acres of land in question. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has, pursuant to the direction issued by the 1st respondent, passed an official memorandum dated 5-1-1999 directing the jurisdictional tahsildar to hand over possession of 10 acres of land to the 4th respondent as per the revised plan. It is stated that by Annexure-c, the 2nd respondent has also granted 20 areas of land in the same land in favour of Karnataka state handicrafts development corporation and that the petitioners are challenging in this writ petition only the grant in favour of the 4th respondent by reserving liberty to question the validity of the grant made in favour of Karnataka state handicrafts development corporation. It is also stated that the petitioners have filed W. P. No. 36084 of 1997 by way of public interest litigation, challenging the Order of the 1st respondent, dated 29-8-1997 directing the 2nd respondent to distribute sites to the members of the Karnataka dalit kriya samithi in an area of 10 acres 12 guntas of land in the said survey number and this court on 27-1-1998 disposed off the matter reserving liberty to the petitioners to agitate the matter before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending before him.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioners is, since the land in question comes under the 'green belt area', the same should not be granted for commercial purpose and the price of rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, at which the land is allotted is on lower side, whereas, its market value is more than rs. 10,00,000/- per acre. The petitioners also contend that the 4th respondent is not a registered institution and no land could be allotted in its favour and the land is being utilised for the purpose for which it has not been allotted. Hence, it is prayed that the Order dated 15-7-1997 passed by the 1st respondent and the impugned official memorandum dated 5-1-1999 issued by the 2nd respondent be quashed.

(3.) IN response to notice, the learned government advocate has filed statement of objections on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, denying the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the land in sy. No. 64 has lost the characteristic of gomal land and under Section 71 of the Karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (in short, 'the act'), the deputy commissioner has the power to set apart the lands for free pasturage for village cattle and said reservation is subject to the orders and notifications passed by the government from time to time. It is also stated that the fourth respondent had made an application for grant of land for establishing institution in public interest and for the establishment of rehabilitation welfare centres and other laudable purpose. It is also stated that the government has taken decision under rule 27 of the Karnataka land grant rules (in short, 'the rules'), and only after the recommendation of the tahsildar, the deputy commissioner and the divisional commissioner after complying with the provisions of the Act and the rules, valid Order has been passed in favour of the 4th respondent and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this writ petition in the garb of public interest litigation and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that there is no question of mala fides and that everything is in order. That apart in absence of any specific allegations of mala fides, it cannot be said that there is violation of some alleged statutory provisions. The fourth respondent has produced photographs to show that the fourth respondent has put up construction of building for establishment of rehabilitation centre and old age home.