MANJE GOWDA M Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 28-3-1966, the petitioner applied to the Tahsildar, Belur, tor grant of 5.7 acres in Sy.No.96 of Bekarahalli village, Arehalli Hobli, which was then under the control and management of the Forest Department, for coffee cultivation. One Shri B. N. Krishnappa, who was Qriginally arrayed as respondent No.4 in this writ petition but who has now been deleted on the ground that he is dead and there are no legal representatives to be brought on record, was also a competing applicant for grant of land in S.No.96. In the course of my order, I will refer to Shri B. N. Krishn appa as respondent No. 4. On 17-12-1969, Government in its Order No. AFD 100 FGL 68 (Exhibit C) interalia conveyed its Sanction, for the Release of S.No. 96 from the Forest Department and its surrender to the, Revenue Department to enable that Department to make grants to certain personu evidently in accordance with the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Rules') . Apprehending that Govt in its, Order d| 17-12-69 has granted Sy. No.96 without considering his application for grant, the petitioner approached this Court in WP.685 of 1970. On 5-8-1971, this Court holding that the order dated 17-12-69 had merely accorded sanction for the release of Sy.No.96 from the Forest Dept to the Revenue Dept and that a grant has not been made in favour of Respt-4, disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the competent revenue authorities will dispose of the application of the petitioner, respondent-4 and any other competing applicant in accordance with law. Evidently without considering the application of the petitioner, Govt in its Order No.RD IG LGH 73 d| 5-7-74 accorded its approval for grant of Sy No.96 to respondent-4. That Order reads thus :

(2.) Shri S.C.Javali, learned Counsel for the petitioner], at the forefront of his case, contended tha,t the order of the Deputy Commr was contrary to the directions issued, by this Court in WPs.685|70 and 3497 74. Elaborating his contention, Shri S.C.Javali pointed out that this Court on the earlier occasion bad held that no grant had been made to respondent-4 and that the application of the Petr & Respt-4 had to be considered afresh in acccordance with law. But the Deputy Commr, contrary to what had been decided by- this Court, had held that a grant had already been made in favour of Respondent-4 and the refuel of the Deputy Commr to consider the application of the petitioner is manifestly illegal. Smt P.G.Gouri, learned High Court Govt Pleader for respondents) 1 to 3, contended that the Deputy Commr had correctly understood the orders of this Court and had dealt with the matter in accordance with the orders of this. Court and the law bearing on the pont.

(3.) In order to examine the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out what has been decided by this Court in the earlier two writ petitions.