Mallavva Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Mallavva vs The State of Karnataka and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Aug 28, 1996

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/843761

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/843761
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.
Decided On: Aug 28, 1996
Case Number: W.P. no. 1237/1989
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Articles 226 and 227 -- Land in continuous possession of an unauthorised occupant cannot be granted to another before evicting her from the land and considering her claim for regularisation. ; It is also relevant to point out that it was not permissible for the second respondent to have grant...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Sections 94A; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mallavva

Advocate Papanna, Adv. for N.M. Swamy, Adv.

Respondent

The State of Karnataka and ors.

Advocate Ashok N. Nayak, HCGP for R-1 and 2 and ;Praveen Kumar Raikote, Adv. R-3

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Sections 94A; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Excerpt

.....of an unauthorised occupant cannot be granted to another before evicting her from the land and considering her claim for regularisation. ; it is also relevant to point out that it was not permissible for the second respondent to have granted the land in question, which was admittedly in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner before evicting the petitioner from the said land and considering her claim for regularization in view of the government circular referred to in the communication/order, annexure 'a', dated 30th june, 1988 issued by the assistant commissioner. - karnataka municipal corporations act, 1976 sections 174 to 178: [p.d.dinakaran, cj & v.g.sabhahit,j] objection as to erection and unveiling of poet-saint-thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake held, the decisions to erect and unveil the statues of great divine poet thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake, bangalore and great poet sarvajna at chennai have been taken at the highest level between both the governments, viz., government of karnataka and government of tamil nadu, of course, with the due approval of the respective corporations, viz., corporation of bangalore and corporation of chennai, particularly, in view of the due approval of the corporation of bangalore for erecting and unveiling of statue of great divine poet thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake, bangalore, and that, functions are also being organised by both the government of karnataka and the government of tamil nadu jointly for erecting statue of great divine poet thiruvallavur near ulsoor lake, bangalore on 9th august, 2009 and statute of great poet sarvajna at chennai on 13th august, 2009, there is no irregularity or illegality in the same.undoubtedly, both the great poets have contributed much to the society to uphold the morality and above all, human dignity, cutting across caste, creed, language, religion and whatsoever. that apart, the proposal of erecting and unveiling of statues of great poets thiruvallavur and sarvajna at bangalore and..........of annexure-d on 19th january, 1989. therefore, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner continues to be in possession of the land in question. no-doubt, the petitioner has not produced the copy of the form no. 50 stated to have been filed by the petitioner under section 94-a as contended by the learned government pleader. on that ground alone the petitioner cannot be denied the relief sought for by the petitioner in the petition. however, assuming that the petitioner has not filed form no. 50, as provided under section 94-a of the act, in view of the pendency of the writ petition before this court ever since the year 1989 and during the pendency of this writ petition, section 94-a of the act, came to be incorporated into land revenue act, i am of the view that the claim of the petitioner to seek regularisation of her unauthorised occupation should not be denied to her on the technical ground she has not made an application in form no. 50 as provided under section 94-a of the act. the object of section 94-a of the act, is to regularise unauthorised occupation provided the conditions laid down in the said section are complied with. therefore, if the application filed by the petitioner seeking regularization of her unauthorised occupation of the land in question have been pending consideration and dispute concerning the same is also pending consideration before this court on the date of coming into force of section 94-a of the act, having regard to be object of section 94-a of the act, the applications earlier filed by the petitioner should be treated as an application filed under section 94-a of the act, for the purpose of relief under section 94-a of the act. whenever an interpretation has to be placed on a provision of an act, the interpretation to be placed must make the provisions of law and the object of the legislation workable; and not deny the relief to the people for whose benefit the state makes the legislation. if that is kept in view, i am of the view.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.

1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25th November, 1988, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D, passed by the second respondent directing that the possession of the land measuring 33 guntas out of 2 acres 27 guntas in Survey No. 34 of Haldal village, Shorapur Taluk, Gulbarga District should be taken from the petitioner and handed over to the third respondent. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application of the petitioner for regularisation of her unauthorised occupation of the land referred to above.

2. Sri Papanna, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even according to respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner has been in unauthorised occupation on the land in question. He submitted that in the order/communication dated 30th June, 1988, the Assistant Commissioner had directed the Revenue Inspector not to evict the petitioner from the land in question as the Government issued orders during 1970, 1977, 1982 to regularise the unauthorised occupation on the Government land. He also further submitted, that the Panchanama dated 15th June, 1988 prepared by the Revenue Officer, shows that the petitioner has been in unauthorised occupation of the land in question. Copies of the order/communication and the panchanama have been produced as Annexure-A and B, respectively.

3. The Learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioner also has filed an application as provided under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in form No. 50 during the pendency of this petition seeking regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the land in question by the petitioner and the said application is also pending consideration before the Committee constituted in consider the said application under Section 94-A of the Act.

4. Sri Ashok N. Nayak, the Learned Government Pleader, submitted that the land in question has been granted to the third respondent and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this petition. He further submitted that the petitioner has not placed any material before this Court to show that the petitioner has filed form No. 50 as provided under Section 94-A of the Act.

5. The mahazer, Annexure-B dated 15th June, 1988 prepared by the Revenue Inspector and order dated 30th June, 1988 -Annexure 'A', passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Yadgir, clearly supports the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has been in unauthorised occupation of the land in question. As pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the communiction, Annexure-A, the Assistant Commissioner has stated that the Government had issued orders during the year 1970, 1977, 1982 to regularise the unauthorised occupants, and in that view of the matter, he had directed the Range Forest Officer not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land in question by the petitioner Further, Section 94-A of the Act confers power on the Committee constituted by the State to regularize the occupation of unauthorised occupants. The applications filed by the petitioner seeking regularisation of her unauthorised occupation in respect of land in question was pending consideration before the Authorities. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 1989 and this Court granted on interim order of Annexure-D on 19th January, 1989. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner continues to be in possession of the land in question. No-doubt, the petitioner has not produced the copy of the form No. 50 stated to have been filed by the petitioner under Section 94-A as contended by the Learned Government Pleader. On that ground alone the petitioner cannot be denied the relief sought for by the petitioner in the petition. However, assuming that the petitioner has not filed form No. 50, as provided under Section 94-A of the Act, in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court ever since the year 1989 and during the pendency of this Writ Petition, Section 94-A of the Act, came to be incorporated into Land Revenue Act, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner to seek regularisation of her unauthorised occupation should not be denied to her on the technical ground she has not made an application in form No. 50 as provided under Section 94-A of the Act. The object of Section 94-A of the Act, is to regularise unauthorised occupation provided the conditions laid down in the said section are complied with. Therefore, if the application filed by the petitioner seeking regularization of her unauthorised occupation of the land in question have been pending consideration and dispute concerning the same is also pending consideration before this Court on the date of coming into force of Section 94-A of the Act, having regard to be object of Section 94-A of the Act, the applications earlier filed by the petitioner should be treated as an application filed under Section 94-A of the Act, for the purpose of relief under Section 94-A of the Act. Whenever an interpretation has to be placed on a provision of an Act, the interpretation to be placed must make the provisions of law and the object of the legislation workable; and not deny the relief to the people for whose benefit the State makes the legislation. If that is kept in view, I am of the view that it is in the interest of the justice to direct the Authorities to forward the applications filed by the petitioner prior to coming into force of Section 94-A of the Act, seeking regularisation of the land in question, before the Committee constituted under Section 94-A of the Act, and consider the said applications on merits keeping in view the provisions of Section 94-A of the Act.

6. It is also relevant to point out that it was not permissible for the second respondent to have granted the land in question, which was admittedly in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner before evicting the petitioner from the said land and considering her claim for regularization in view of the Government Circular referred to in the communication/order, Annexure 'A', dated 30th June, 1988 issued by the Assistant Commissioner.

7. Therefore, I make the following order:-

i) Rule issued is made absolute;

ii) The order, Annexure-D, dated 25th November, 1988 is hereby quashed;

iii) The second respondent is directed to forward the application/ s filed by the petitioner seeking regularisation of the land measuring 33 guntas in Survey No. 34 situated at Haldal village, Shorapur Taluk, Gulbarga District to the Committee (i.e. Fourth respondent) Constituted under Section 94-A of the Land Revenue Act;

iv) The 4th respondents-Committee is directed to consider and dispose of the said application/s alongwith the application stated to have been filed by the petitioner in form No. 50 if any, as expeditiously as possible and at any event of the matter and not later than six months from the date of receipt of this order, in accordance with law; and

v) The respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land referred to above, till the disposal of the application filed by the petitioner as stated above.

8. In terms stated above, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

9. Sri Ashok N. Nayak, Learned High Court Government Pleader, is given four weeks' time to file his memo of appearance.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1996 Same Parties Mallavva vs The State of Karnataka and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Sections 94A; Constitution of In...

Property