PROF. A. LAKSHMISAGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Government has nullified the order of this Court in the order impugned in these petitions, is the most extraordinary feature disclosed in this case, in that, in the impugned order the State Government has directed that several orders made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act according permission for conversion of 414 acres of agricultural land for non -agricultural use, to wit, for establishing a housing colony on the banks of Arkavati River near Thippagondanahalli Water Reservoir, one of the sources of supply of drinking water to the City of Bangalore, which were quashed by this Court, in Writ Petitions Nos. 19919 to 19954 and 21172 to 21177/1982 presented by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, which order was confirmed in Writ Appeals Nos. 744 to 785 of 1987, shall continue.

(2.) THE above ground urged by the petitioners against the impugned order caused consternation to us, as it was beyond our comprehension that the Government had done so, but after hearing, we are amazed to find that the Government has actually done so.

(3.) THE substance of the pleadings in all the three Petitions may be summarised thus: - (I) The Water Reservoir constructed at Thippagondanahalli across the river Arkavati is one of the main sources for supply of water to the City of Bangalore with a population of 60 lakhs. By allowing a township to come up on the Banks of Arkavati river by construction of 270 country villas, both quality and quantity of water in the river and reservoir would be adversely affected which is injurious to the interest of millions of people residing in the City of Bangalore. Not only there would be depletion of water but also there is every chance of pollution of water and, in fact, that has been the stand of the Water Board in the Writ Petitions filed by it in which it had succeeded. Granting permission for establishing of township in such a sensitive locality was wholly arbitrary as it only favours DLF, which is a financially powerful company engaged in profit making venture of land development and a few affluent individuals, who alone could purchase such sites and construct country villas, and is totally injurious to public interest. The State Government had acted totally without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and it had done so only on collateral considerations yielding to the influence brought to bear on it by DLF. Inspite of the orders of this Court quashing the orders of conversion, in the impugned order, the Government has directed that the very orders which were quashed by this Court shall continue and thereby setting at naught the orders of this Court, which is not only high -handed, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, but also amounted to committing contempt of this Court. By the impugned order, the State Government has in fact and in truth permitted establishment of a new township consisting of 270 houses and this could not have been done by the State Government without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the Planning Act. In any event, the State Government had no power to grant conversion of agricultural land for non -agricultural use as the said power is vested in the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act. (II) The purchase of lands by 42 individuals who were not agriculturists and who had more than Rs. 12,000/ - income was void in view of Section 79 -A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and therefore the lands stood vested in the Government as provided in that Section. Further, under Section 79B of the Act, no Company could own agricultural lands and therefore the DLF, could not have purchased 414 acres of agricultural land and therefore in view of Section 79B of the Act action should have been taken by the revenue officers to forfeit all the lands to the State Government as provided in that Section.