Ramegowda and Others Vs. Tahsildar, Alur Taluk, Alur, Hassan District and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
forest (conservation) act, 1980 - section 2 €“ karnataka land revenue rules, 1966 - karnataka land revenue act, 1964 - exertion of gross inertia €“ allocation of agricultural lands €“ non-compliance - for the project was to harness water of river and canalised to different areas in and around the district, petitioners, gave up their lands which were the only source of eking their livelihood for a €œpublic purpose €? - state though made a promise to allot agricultural lands to the displaced farmers, which were not done €“ petitioner filed petition before singe judge, who directed state to issue saguvali chits in favour of petitioners in respect of lands granted, deliver vacant possession of same within a period €“ however, state failed to keep up its undertaking to comply with the directions of single judge €“ hence instant petition issue is €“ whether petitioners are entitled to compensation of grant of lands court held - once saguvali chit (occupancy certificate) is issued pursuant to a grant made under the act, 1964 and rules, 1966, it is the duty of revenue authorities to ensure recording the names of grantees in the revenue records which is mandatory under said statute - therefore, revenue authorities are bound to discharge statutory duties and functions and failure to do so must not only be deprecated - therefore, there is a need to issue directions and compensate petitioners for unwanted litigation, for passive inaction on the part of the state and its authorities - respondents are directed to issue same within a period - petitions allowed. para 7, 8 comparative citation: 2015 (5) kantlj 1, 1. this is a classic case of a poor displaced farmer knocking at the doors of this court periodically due to gross inertia exerted by the respondent-state and its authorities. 2. hemavathi project when visualised, led to large scale displacement of farmers in hassan district during the year 1970. that project was to harness water of the river hemavathi and chanalised it to different areas in and around the district. as a result, petitioners, amongst others, gave up their lands which were the only source of eking their livelihood for a public purpose ?. the state though made a promise during the year 1970 to allot agricultural lands to the displaced farmers, which when not done, led to the institution of a writ petition, whence a learned singe judge, by order, annexure-a, directed the state to issue saguvali chits in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands granted, deliver vacant possession of the same within three months therefrom i.e., from 21-2-2006. in the writ appeal filed by the state, a direction was issued to the state to submit a proposal to the government of india, respondent 22 for grant of prior approval under section 2 of the forest (conservation) act, 1980, so as to comply with the directions of the learned single judge. it appears that the state having petitioned the union of india, though obtained necessary directions, nevertheless, did nothing precious, therefore, petitioners amongst others were constrained to file ccc no. 324 of 2010, whence the division bench having noticed the failure of the state to keep up its undertaking to comply with the directions, by order dated 13-10-2010, was constrained to frame charges against the accused. 3. it is at that stage the accused in the contempt petition on 19-6-2013 submitted that they delivered possession of the properties to the petitioners, where afterwards, in the absence of identity of the said lands except for photographs, certain other directions were issued to fix the boundary stones and also fence the land following which the authorities are said to have initiated action. on recording compliance of the directions of the learned single judge in the proceedings, contempt petition was dropped. 4. it is the allegation of the petitioners that despite representation calling upon the respondents to record the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, more appropriately, rtc pahani, when not done, has resulted in this petition for writ of mandamus. 5. sri s. n. keshava murthy, learned counsel for petitioners reiterates the averments in the memorandum of writ petition and submits that the state is very unfair in its behaviour towards land loosers, right from the year 1970 by persistently making petitioners to approach this court for reliefs and it is only after intervention by court that action is taken. in other words, according to learned counsel the state and its authorities were in deep slumber and had to be shaken and awaken by orders of the court, as otherwise, would have done nothing precious. in this facts and circumstances, there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners. 6. per contra, sri e. r. diwakar, learned additional government advocate, submits that redressal of grievance of the petitioners to have their names recorded in rtc pahani could be effectively done by approaching the contempt court since the authorities would comply with directions of the contempt court. it is elsewhere said that learned counsel must assist the court in delivery of justice, therefore petitioners cannot be relegated to yet another round of litigation before the contempt court. 7. once saguvali chit (occupancy certificate) is issued pursuant to a grant made under the karnataka land revenue act, 1964 and karnataka land revenue rules, 1966 framed thereunder, it is the duty of the revenue authorities to ensure recording the names of the grantees in the revenue records. this is the action which is mandatory under the said statute. therefore, revenue authorities are bound to discharge statutory duties and functions and failure to do so must not only be deprecated, but also, viewed seriously. it is sad that even after 65 years of independence and the constitution having come into force, statutory authorities perform functions in a cavalier manner as has been done in the present case. therefore, there is a need to issue directions and compensate the petitioners for unwanted litigation, for the passive inaction on the part of the state and its authorities. 8. in the result, petitions are allowed. the first and second respondents are directed to record the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, more appropriately, the rtc pahanis and issue the extracts accordingly in respect of the lands granted to them and of which saguvali chits are issued in any event within a fortnight from today. costs quantified at rs. 20,000/- to each of the petitioners payable by the chief secretary of the respondent-state and recoverable from the salary of the officer responsible for the inaction.