MILLENNIUM EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claiming as the Educational Trust, made an application for grant of land for its activities. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, by its order dated 4th March 2004 has granted ten acres of land in Survey No. 7 and 8 of Shivanapura Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. On the basis of the land so granted, lease deed was executed on 6th March 2004. The Tahsildar, Bangalore North was directed to hand over possession of the land as per Annexure-D dated 16th March 2004. Though it was directed to hand over the land to the petitioner, physical possession of the land was not handed over and hence representations dated 10th June 2004, 17th March 2005, 5th July 2006 and 24th April 2009 as per Annexure-E to H have been made by the petitioner-Trust to the Deputy Commissioner with a request to hand over possession of the land. Without considering the representations made to the Deputy Commissioner requesting to hand over the land, the Deputy Commissioner, by its order dated 15th May 2010 in No. LND(N) CR 199/2003-04 cancelled the grant on the ground that the petitioner-Trust has violated the condition stipulated in the grant in not utilizing the land within the period of two years from the date of grant. Further, by its order dated 26th May 2010, the land has been handed over to Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "RGRHCL" for short), to utilize the land for houseless and site-less persons in Bangalore. The impugned orders dated 15th May 2010 and 26th May 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "LG Rules" for short) was challenged in Writ Petition No. 17694 of 2010 (KLR-LG) and the same came to be dismissed on 17th January 2011. The grounds urged in the said writ petition were that the provisions of LG Rules was made applicable to the case of the petitioner-Trust and hence the same are ultra vires since the grant was made in the year 2004 when amendment was not brought. Secondly, three months' notice, stipulated under the lease agreement, is not complied with. Arbitration clause has not been invoked; the prayers of the petitioners have been negatived, etc. The Writ petition came to be dismissed. Against the said order, Writ Appeal in No. 1476 of 2011 was preferred and the same was allowed by order dated 16th June 2011 reserving liberty to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings against the Trust, if they are so advised, as it is mandatory to give three months notice to the petitioner. In compliance of the order in the Writ Appeal, the Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings and again cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner by order dated 10th October, 2011. Challenging the said order, the present petition is filed.

(2.) The petitioner has taken a ground that during pendency of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, he permitted the impleading applicants to come on record as Respondents No. 3 to 11, all the action of the Deputy Commissioner is illegal and arbitrary since they were not proper and necessary parties. The second ground taken is that the consideration of the case of the petitioner in cancelling the grant is by invoking sub-rules (2) and (5) of Rule 19 of the LG Rules and both the amended Rules came into force only from 22nd May 2005, whereas the grant was made on 4th March 2004. The conditions stipulated under the amended Rules could not have been made applicable to the petitioner's case, since the amendment was not retrospective in nature. Hence the impugned action of the Deputy Commissioner in rejecting the case of the petitioner-Trust under the provisions of the amended Rules is violative and contrary to law. The third ground urged is in rejecting the grant on the ground that the petitioner has not utilized the land within two years, as under Clause 7 of the grant dated 4th March 2004, the land itself has not been handed over to the Trust despite several representations and hence rejecting the grant on the ground of non-utilisation of the land within two years, is arbitrary. The impugned order is resulting in non-application of mind since at the first instance, the case was rejected on the ground of non-utilizing the granted land within two years and on the second occasion also was rejected bringing the case of the petitioner under Rule 19(5)(i) and (ii) of the LG Rules. In addition to the grounds taken in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 26 of the lease agreement contemplates that dispute or differences, if any, between the Government or their officers and the Trust with regard to the lease or the construction or the meaning of all or any of the provisions, the same shall be referred to arbitration for settlement. But in the instant case, the said Clause has not been operated. Hence, the cancellation is in violation of the lease agreement entered into between the parties. Clause 23 of the lease agreement further require 3 months' notice in writing and since without issuing such notice the cancellation has been made, the order passed in Writ Appeal No. 1476 of 2011 for issuance of notice, as the same is substantial in character, has not been complied and no notices have been issued, as was directed in the appeal. The impleading applicants before the Deputy Commissioner were in respect of survey No. 7 and 8 and other extent of land. However, it was directed to form layout for the purpose of impleading applicants in respect of the land granted to the petitioner-Trust. Hence, what was sought by the impleading applicants has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner. For formation of sites to the houseless and weaker sections, Rule 18-A of the LG Rules provides to float the scheme for the said purpose, but without framing any scheme, under the said provision, the land granted to the petitioner-Trust is sought to be given to them.

(3.) On behalf of the Government, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with the grant and lease agreement and hence there is no violation. Clause 7 of the Grant order, dated 4th March 2004 mandates the petitioner-Trust to utilize the land within two years, but the same has not been utilized within the time stipulated and thereafter the grant was cancelled. The land was sought to be given as house sites to the weaker sections and the working class, and as per Clause 5 of the grant, the Government can cancel the same without any notice to the parties. As per the order passed in the Writ Appeal No. 1476 of 2011, notice was issued, the Counsel has represented the petitioner-Trust by filing vakalat, but he has not filed any objection to the notice. He has produced only the copy of the Trust deed, annual statement of accounts and thereafter, totally he has not contested the case.