STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. HOLEYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants in W. A. No. 3813/2005 and Petitioner in w. P. No. 21221/2005 claim that they are unauthorisedly cultivating land in Sy. No. 32 of Chikkashakuna Village, Soraba Taluk in shimoga District. They filed applications in Form No. 50 under section. 94 - A of the Karnataka [land Revenue Act 1964, r/w Rule 108 - C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966, (hereinafter called as 'klr Act' and 'rules' in short) seeking regularisation of their unauthorised occupation of the land, but the Tahsildar issued Notices dated 21 - 6 - 2004 calling upon them not to cultivate the land until their applications for regularisation are disposed of. Being aggrieved by the same, they have filed the writ petitions seeking to quash the notices and for a Writ of Mandamus to the authorities to regularise their unauthorised cultivation of the land in question. The writ petition of Appellants in W. A. No. 3813/2005 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 22 - 9 - 2005. The learned Single Judge held that direction cannot be issued to the authorities to regularise the unauthorised cultivation of Gomal land and the authorities were directed to retain the gomal land. The learned Single Judge also directed the Registrar General of this Court to forward a copy of the order to all the Deputy commissioners in the State. The Secretary to Revenue Department and the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka with a direction to ensure follow - up action pursuant to the notices issued. Being aggrieved by the same, the State, the Land Grant Committee and the Tahsildar filed W. A. No. 1353/2006 while the unauthorised occupants filed W. A. No. 3813/2005 questioning the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge. Since W. P. No. 21221/ 2005 was not disposed of the same is clubbed along with the two writ appeals.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single judge extracted the relevant provisions of KLR Act and Rules and declined to grant the reliefs to the writ petitioners.

(3.) THE main grievance of the unauthorised occupants is that the statutory right guaranteed to them to seek regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of the Government Land is deprived of thereby the provisions empowering regularisation of unauthorised occupation have been made redundant or otiose. The learned addl. Government Advocate Mr. P. GC. Chengappa has submitted that by virtue of the impugned order and the directions issued, the object and purpose of certain provisions of the Act and the rules have been made nugatory. In the light of these grievances, we now proceed to examine the: correctness of the order under challenge in the Writ Appeals and legality of the impugned notices in the Writ Petition.