BHEEMANNA GOUD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

W.P.NO.68387/2011 (LA-RES) BETWEEN :

AND :

2 Liquidator, Kampli Co-Operative Sugar Factories Limited, Gulbarga Division, Raichur.

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution Of India, praying this Hon’ble Court to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement bearing No.Bhoo/Swaa/Itare/17/11-12 dated 16.09.2011 issued by the respondent No.7 vide Annexure-N. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ group, this day, the Court made the following:

3 : ORDER :

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 16.09.2011 issued by respondent No.7 as per Annexure-N. 2. The petitioners are also seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus against the 1st respondent-State to re-convey the land in Sy.No.1424/A 54.81 acres situated at Kampli, Hosapete Taluk, Ballari District after releasing the lands from mal-encumbrance as per the demand made by the petitioners in Annexure-H dated 05.06.2010. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioners have stated that the petition land was acquired for formation of a sugar factory, Ballari Central Cooperative Society Limited, Ballari. It is further stated that the lands were acquired through agreement holder under Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act after complying the formality under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

4 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land was never utilized by the company at any point of time. The company has suffered loss in maintaining liquidation. The official liquidator who is Joint Registrar of Societies, took over the assets of the company. It is also stated that one Sundari Sugars Limited purchased the acquired land excluding the present petition land bearing Sy.No.1424/A. At paragraph No.7 of the writ petition, the petitioners have specifically stated that Sy.No.1424/A was never utilized for any of the purposes by the company. 5. The further case is that the petition land is not handed over to the purchaser. The petitioners are also relying on an agreement entered into by erstwhile company with the Government, wherein a clause contemplated, which provides that if the land is not utilized the company, it should be surrendered to the Government. In the event of such surrender, the State has an option to re-convey it to the original owners. 6. In this background, it appears that the petitioners made several requests to the official

5 liquidator as well as to the State to invoke its power of taking back the lands and hand over to the same to the present petition. 7. The petitioners have submitted several writ petitions to consider their case for re-conveyance of the land. One such representation dated 05.06.2010 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-H. 8. A specific averment is made at paragraph No.11 of the writ petition that the petition land has not been sold. A similar representation was also submitted as per Annexure-L. 9. Pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioners it appears that the 6th respondent- Deputy Commissioner delegated the power to the 7th respondent-Assistant Commissioner to consider the representation. The 7th respondent-Assistant Commissioner has passed impugned order as per Annexure-N rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 10. The petitioners are before this Court questioning the endorsement issued by the 7th

6 respondent dated 16.09.2011 as per Annexure-N. The short question that is raised before this Court by the petitioners is that it is the 6th respondent-Deputy Commissioner who is vested with power to consider the case of the petitioners for re-conveyance. However, the 6th respondent-Deputy Commissioner has ventured into delegating the said power to the 7th respondent- Assistant Commissioner, which is one without jurisdiction. 11. On this short point, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit to this Court that he order under challenge passed by the 7th respondent as per Annexure-N is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. 12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would support the reasoning assigned by the 7th respondent-Assistant Commissioner in the impugned endorsement as per Annexure-N. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit to this Court that, since possession is delivered to beneficiary, the question of re-conveyance cannot be considered at this

7 stage. On this count he requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 13. On perusal of the notification issued by the State as per Annexure-C, it is forthcoming that there is a clause indicating that if the land in question by the company is not utilized and the same is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired, then the State may resume the land. The clause further contemplates that the Government has to decide the same by exercising its power and inform the company accordingly. 14. As per Circular issued by the State vide Annexure-P, the State has issued a compendium of land acquisition Circulars and as per Item No.179 contemplates disposal of lands acquired for public purpose and also it further contemplates that if the lands acquired are not required for any public purpose the same are to be dealt in terms of the agreement and this power is conferred on Deputy Commissioner of a District.

8 15. The relevant circular is culled out as under: “Subject to the above conditions, the Deputy Commissioners of District may consider the requests of original owners of the land or their heirs for regrant of the land once acquired. But such regrant should be subject to the payment of full market value of the land as determined by the Deputy Commissioner as it obtains on the date of regrant or the compensation paid for the land at the time of acquisition, whichever is more. The regrant should also be subject to the ceiling limits prescribed in the Land Reforms act. In all other cases where there are no claims from the original holders of land, it may be disposed of under the provisions of the Mysore Land Grant Rules.” 16. On bare reading of the above said circular it is clearly evident that it is the 6th respondent-Deputy Commissioner who was required to examine the representation and take appropriate decision in terms of the Circular at Item No.179. However the Deputy Commissioner has delegated his power to the 7th respondent-Assistant Commissioner.

9 17. On perusal of the Circular I would find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned delegation to the 7th respondent-Assistant Commissioner is one without jurisdiction. The State has specifically empowered the Deputy Commissioner to deal with the lands which were acquired. In the said Circular there is no provision for further sub-delegation, the Circular clearly contemplates that it is only the Deputy Commissioner who has to decide the claim of the original land owner for re-conveyance. Since this exercise has not done by the Deputy Commissioner but the same is delegated to the 7th respondent-Assistant Commissioner, the impugned endorsement as per Annexure-N is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. 18. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following order. : ORDER : a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The impugned endorsement dated 16.09.2011 issued by the 7th respondent-

10 Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-N is set aside. c) The 6th respondent Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the representation as per Annexure-L by examining the claim of the petitioners by following the Circular at Item No.179 at Annexure-P to the writ petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. d) This exercise has been done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/- JUDGE EM/-