NARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for quashing the auction notice dated 30th November 2005 issued by 3rd respondent vide Annexure-L. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to relax the condition for the purpose of regularisation of his unauthorized occupation over the land in question situated in the outskirts of Ramanagaram City. Certain consequential reliefs are also sought for. The case of the petitioner is that he is in unauthorized cultivation of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 55 measuring 1 acres 14 guntas of Jiginahally and 0.12 guntas in Sy. No. 83 of Bolappanahalli village, Kasba Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore Rural District since 40 years; he has been paying necessary land revenue to the Government regularly; he has raised coconut and mango trees apart from teak trees in the land. The lands in question are belonging to the State Government, since he is in unauthorized occupation of the land for more than 40 years, he made an application for regularisation of his unauthorized occupation under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the Land Grant Committee granted the prayer of the petitioner and consequently the unauthorised occupation of land of the petitioner was regularized; the Tahsildhar as well as the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Land Grant Committee; the matter reached the Deputy Commissioner; the Deputy Commissioner without taking any decision referred the matter to the State Government for consideration; the State Government again sent back the records to the Deputy Commissioner for initiating action; since nothing has taken place thereafter, according to the petitioner, his application for regularisation is still pending consideration. In the mean-while, the State Government has issued notification as per Annexure-L dated 30th November 2005 for auctioning the properties in question alongwith other properties. The 5th respondent participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder; however sale is not confirmed as on this day in favour of the 5th respondent.

(2.) Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued in support of the writ petition by contending that subsequently inserted provision i.e., Section 94-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is not applicable to the facts of the case, inasmuch as, the application is filed much prior to 20th March 1991, on which date, Section 94-A is inserted in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the State Government ought to have relaxed the condition relating to the distance of 1km from City Municipal Council as per Rule 108-N of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules; since the petitioner is poor and is entitled to grant of land under the Rules, the authority should have regularized the unauthorized occupation of the land of the petitioner.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he made an application for regularisation of his unauthorized occupation of the land in question. However, the records produced by respondent No. 5 alongwith statement of objections creates grave suspicion in the mind of the Court about the veracity of the petitioner. Annexure-R6 produced alongwith statement of objections reveals that the petitioner has falsely stated that he is a landless person. Though seal(date) is put on the said application as 19.9.1991, the same is received by the Tahsildhar only on 30th December 2005. The register maintained by Tahsildhar's office at Annexure-R7 clearly reveals that the name of the petitioner is inserted in the said register to indicate that he had made an application for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation on 19.7.1991. However, no such application dated 19.7.1991 is forthcoming. Copy of one more application for regularisation is produced alongwith statement of objections at Annexure-R8. The said application stated to have been filed by Narayana Rao discloses that he is a coolie by profession and the seal is put having date of 25th July 1991, but, the said application also is received by the Tahsildhar only on 30th December 2005. Thus, both the applications Annexures-R6 and R8 are received by the Tahsildhar only on 30th December 2005. Another register (form No. 51) maintained by the Tahsildhar is produced at Annexure-R9. It clearly discloses that the name of the petitioner is inserted once again. Since the aforementioned documents reveal the insertions and manipulations, I have to conclude that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Only on that ground, the relief needs to be refused to the petitioner.