B MALLAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and annexure-K under which the Appellate Tribunal has chosen to cancel the grant in favour of the petitioner to the extent of 1 acre 38 guntas in Survey No. 96 under order dated 3-6-1987. It is seen from the order of the Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent who are brothers, were granted 4 acres 38 guntas on 25-6-1983. On 3-6-1987, an additional 1 acre 38 guntas were granted by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the land of the petitioner is nearer to the land granted and such land is necessary for enjoyment of the petitioner's land. It is seen in both the cases that the lands granted are claimed to be Gomal lands and in both the cases, the extremes are ordered to be reduced to the extent of the grants. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent who had absolutely no interest or concern with any kind of grant, preferred an appeal to cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that there was a tank bund in Survey No. 96 situated above the lands belonging to him and in between the said tank and his lands, a Halla was in existence since times immemorial, and the water in the said tank runs through the Halla for the benefit of himself and other land owners to use the water to irrigate their lands. It is also contended by the 4th respondent that the grant was opposed to the principles of land grant rules. It is further contended that Survey No. 96 was not included in the lease and therefore, it could not be the subject-matter of the grant. Claiming further that no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners by the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal was challenged in this writ petition. The Tribunal finds from the records that the lands were granted to the very same person within a short time and under suspicious circumstances with reference to the grant. The Tribunal found that the granting authority and its subordinates were pursuaded and yielded to the pressures rather than on merits. It is also seen from the finding rendered by the tribunal that files have been so built up to oblige the petitioners and an application for grant was granted. The granting authority has not exercised jurisdiction properly and the Government land was casually dealt with without any rhyme or reason. The definite finding of the Appellate Court is that the impugned order is vitiated on account of favouritism and total disregard of the norms of grant and without considering the earlier grant by suppressing it from the official records subsequently built up. Therefore, the Tribunal has set aside the grant in favour of the petitioner. It is this order that is being challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned Counsel submitted that under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules, he is entitled to the grant of the adjacent or close to his land on collection of the market value. Rule 4 (2) of the Karnataka land Grant Rules, 1969, reads as under:

(3.) I do not find any infirmity in the order. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.