M K SUBBA RAO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner M. K. Subba Rao is a displaced holder' since most of his lands owned and cultivated by him were acquired for the Sharavathi Valley Project. He is therefore a person coming within the definition of the expression displaced holder as denned in the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. He applied for grant of lands in Shankanna shanubhogue village, Sagar Taluk and also in another village. He was granted four acres of land in Nagodi village, but his application for grant of 16 acres and 23 guntas of land in survey Nos. 71, 88, 89, 90 and 96 of Shankannashanubhogue village was rejected by the third respondent (Special Officer for Rehabilitation, and Irrigation Development), T.B.S. Project, Shimoga) by his order dated 27-5-1966, copy of which is annexed as Ext. 'A' to this writ petition. THE said order so far as it relates to the application of the petitioner reads thus:

(2.) IT will be seen from clause (a) of the sub-rule that the extent of land granted to a displaced person shall not exceed the extent of land of which the displaced holder was deprived due to acquisition. Clause (c) imposes a ceiling on the total extent of the land which the displaced person can hold in case of grant to be made. None of the clauses in the relevant sub-rule provide that in the case of displaced persons or displaced tenants the claimant in order to qualify for the grant should be an insufficient holder. The very fact that the petitioner was granted four acres of land in Nagodi village under same claim shows that although he was not an inisufficient holder, he was granted some lands. The 3rd respondent undoubtedly has his discretion in making the grant, but while exercising the discretion, he should be governed by relevant considerations provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 43-D and not by any other rule which has no relevance to the question of making the grant. For the reasons stated above, we allow this writ petition, quash the impugned orders of Respondents 2 and 3 (Exts. B and A) in so far as they reject the application of the petitioner for grant of land. We further direct the third respondent to take the application of the petitioner on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations. No costs.