ALL INDIA KISSAN SABHA, KARNATAKA STATE COMMITTEE, SRI KARIYANNA, SRI PAPA NAYAKA G. AND SRI BANGARAIAH Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the orders of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 granting total of 8932 acres and 20 guntas of land to respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The respondents, to whom large tracts of lands are allotted, are: (1) Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) - 4290 acres (2) Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - 1500 acres (3) Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) - 573 acres and 20 guntas (4) Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mysore - 1810 acres (5) Karnataka State Industrial Development Corporation, Harihara region - 300 acres (6) Karnataka Housing Board, Chitradurga - 50 acres and (7) Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga - 47 acres. Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be an organization at the national level and claims to be representing the interest of small farmers through its State Committee whereas, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are stated to be villagers from Dodda Ullarti Kavalu, Varavu Kavalu and Khudapura village of Challakere taluk, Chitradurga district. These petitioners are stated to have used the lands in question for the purpose of grazing the cattle and the petition is given the colour of a public interest litigation. After the petition being entertained by issuance of notice to the respondents, several other persons have joined as respondents by making application for impleadment and even after filing of the statement of objections by some of the respondents, the petitioners and impleaded respondents have sought to make elaborate arguments and file written submissions. According to the petitioners and their supporting respondents, the lands in question were designated and used as Amrit Mahal Kavalu for the purpose of developing special breed of cow and after allocation of lands, as aforesaid, practically, no land has been left even for grazing in Ullarti Kavalu and Khudapura villages. It is submitted that the petitioners came to know about the grant of lands only when the construction of fencing was undertaken. It is contended that the lands were originally reserved for grazing under Sections 71 and 72 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the change of user and allotment of lands was in violation of the provisions of Rule 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner, who was the competent officer, had not made the necessary order. It was expansively argued for the petitioners and the supporting respondents that the villagers, who were using the lands for grazing of cattle, had a vested right and they were not even heard or put to notice about the large tracts of land being given away to aforesaid organizations. It is also contended that the respondents concerned have not considered the ecological aspects and biodiversity of area, as also the interest of the cattle upon whom, the two dominant communities of kurubas and gollas were dependant. Developing the claim further, it is also contended that the lands allotted to respondent Nos. 5 to 10 ought to have been considered as district forest lands. Thus, in short, legal, environmental and ecological issues have been sought to be raised, after four years of allotment of lands to respondent Nos. 5 to 10.

(2.) BY filing statement of objections on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, supported by verifying affidavit of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, it is stated that petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not residents of either Varavu Kavalu, Ullarti Kavalu or Khudapura villages of Challakere taluk and they have no locus standi to file the petition. It is stated that, after following all the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Land Revenue Act and Rules, especially Rule 27 of the Land Grant Rules, 1969, that the lands in question were granted. The lands in question were basically Amrith Mahal Kaval lands, which were reserved for breeding Amrith Mahal Kaval cattle by Veterinary Department since 1971, but it was not used for the purpose, even as it was reserved for about 40 years. Cattle of the villagers were not allowed to graze on the lands in question, as the lands were under the control and supervision of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences. It is denied that the people of the area were depending upon animal husbandry, as the district is basically agrarian economy. The State Government had, in its wisdom, thought it fit to use the lands in question to provide basic infrastructure to the entire district, even as only a few families of kurubas and gollas were engaged in the household industry of cattle breeding. It is also pointed out that the people of the villages, which are alleged to have been affected, have their own elected bodies. In absence of any representation or objection by such elected leaders, it was only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions of the petitioners that the present issues are agitated in the name of public interest. The institutions, to which the lands in question are allocated, are prestigious institutions and it could not be said that public lands in the possession and ownership of the Government as revenue lands were allocated for serving any private interest. Statement of objections on similar lines are also filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, with verifying affidavits of the Registrar, Indian Institute of Science, the Senior Administrative Officer of ISRO, the Chief Administrative Officer of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the Scientist of DRDO. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the Karnataka Housing Board has also filed statement of objections, to state in substance that 50 acres of land have been granted to them, in consultation with the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. They have already formed a layout and issued work orders to the contractors for completing the work for a sum of approximately Rs. 11.23 crores and the work is nearing completion, even as the question of allotting houses and sites is yet to be completed. It is further stated on behalf of respondent No. 10 that one person by name Mr. Leo Saldhana, said to be an Environmentalist, has filed Application Nos. 6 and 12 of 2013 to challenge the grant of land in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 before the National Green Tribunal at Chennai and the matter is pending.

(3.) LEARNED AGA Mr. B. Veerappa appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 pointed out in that regard that, in the facts of the present case, necessary decision was taken at the level of Deputy Commissioner and the State Government had only approved the proposal made by the Deputy Commissioner. He relied upon the impugned orders at Annexures A, B, C and D to substantiate the contention that the orders were made after due application of mind by the Deputy Commissioner concerned and the State Government had approved the proposals submitted by the Deputy Commissioner by issuing the impugned orders. Thus, in short, the necessary orders under Rule 97(4) were in fact made by the Deputy Commissioner and hence, even the sole legal contention of the petitioners could not survive. In the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, the petitions are liable to be dismissed with necessary order as to cost, in view of the fact that the petitioners appeared to have dragged the respondents to Court at considerable cost, without having any genuine and bona fide interest in the matter and an attempt is made to thwart the work of development carried on in national and public interest, in the name of assumed or alleged injury or loss to a few indefinite number of villagers or animals. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed with cost, quantified at Rs. 75,000/ - out of which, respondent Nos. 1, and 5 to 10 shall be paid Rs. 10,000/ - each and Rs. 5,000/ - shall be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority at Bangalore, by the petitioners, within a period of one month.