Writ Petition No. 2458 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 2458 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SARASWATHI AMMA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 2-199, SRIRAMA NILAYA, BANTWAL TALUK, NETLA MUDNUR NERALAKATTE, BANTWALA TALUK, D. K. DISTRICT, PIN-574 253. 2. K. RADHAKRISHNA BHAT S/O. K. NARASIMHAT BHAT, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2-273, KUKKARABETTU HOUSE, NETLAMUDNUR VILLAGE, NERALAKATTTE POST, BANTWALA TALUK, D. K. DISTRICT, PIN 574 253. (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU PIN 560 001. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU D. K. DISTRICT, PIN 565 001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALURU SUB DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, TALUK OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, MANGALURU, D. K. DISTRICT, PIN 565 001. 4. THASILDAR BANTWAL TALUK, BANTWAL D K DISTRICT, PIN 574 219.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRYING TO QUASHING THE
Decision
ORDER DATED 07-12-2024 IN NO. LEASE/GERUKRISHI/CR.05/2022/E-183383 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU SUB DIVISION, MANGALURU IN SO FAR AS IMPOSING CONDITION THAT THE GRANTEES/PETITIONERS SHALL PAY THE MARKET VALUE OR THE GUIDANCE VALUE WHICHEVER IS HIGHER AND ALSO THE CONDITION NO. 4 IMPOSED REGARDING NON ALIENATION FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A. AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition the petitioners are assailing the order dated 07.12.2024, (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.3, Assistant Commissioner, imposing condition that the grantees/petitioners shall pay the market value or the guidance value whichever is higher and also the condition No.4 imposed regarding non alienation for a period of 25 years and further order dated 10.01.2025, (Annexure-B) issued by the respondent No.4 Tahsildar, inter-alia sought for a direction to respondents-authorities to grant permanent ownership in favour of the petitioners as per the value of the land fixed in the orders dated 15.10.1958, (Annexure-C). 2. Heard Sri. Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Navya Shekhar, learned AGA for the respondent - authorities. 3. Sri. Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel appearing for petitioners, refers to the order of lease of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR lands in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners on 15.10.1958 and the said lease deed was provided for making application for renewal of lease or for acquiring permanent ownership of the land after completion of 30 years of the lease period. He further contended that, the respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, has passed an order holding that the legal representatives of the original lease holders are entitled for the permanent ownership, however, while, considering their case, respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner has imposed condition that the grantees are liable to pay market value or guidance value of the land whichever is higher. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of RATHANKARA SHETTY V/s. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.27790/2016 disposed of on 27.02.2024 (Anenxure-F) and order dated 26.10.2007 in a M.S.SADANANDAGOWDA V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.A.No.5242/2004 and connected appeals - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR disposed of on 26.10.2007 and contended that, the market value has to be stipulated by reckoning the prevailing price at the time of grant of original lease deed and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent - authorities requires interference by this Court. With regard to the imposition of condition No.4 concerned, the learned counsel for petitioners, argued that any condition that may be stipulated shall be reckoned from the date of original lease period and therefore, sought for interference by this Court. 4. Sri. Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel also places reliance on the order dated 10.06.2022 made by the respondent No.2 herein and submitted that respondent No.2 has accepted the imposition of condition and the variation of the price in so far as other lessees are concerned, however, respondent No.2 has discriminated the petitioners herein. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR 5. Per contra, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned AGA, sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities and places reliance on the judgment of the this Court in W.P.No.7308/2022 disposed of on 09.02.2024 and contended that this Court following the Division Bench of this Court in M.S.Sadananda Gowda (supra) rejected the petition under similar lines and accordingly, justified the action of respondent authorities with regard to variation of the price in so far as the land in question is concerned. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points for consideration is with regard to the following aspects: i) Whether of condition No.4 by the respondent No.3 requires interference by this Court; imposition the ii) Whether the variation of the price in so far as the earlier lease held by the respondent authorities is justifiable in nature; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the original grant order has been made in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners on 15.10.1958. The said aspect has not been countered by other side. In so far as fixation of the value to be paid by the grantees is concerned, under the provision of the South Kanara District Lease of Lands for Cashew Cultivation Rules, 1957, the legal aspect is res-integra in view of the declaration of law made by the Division Bench in the case of M.A. Sadananda Gowda (supra). Paragraph No.8 in the said judgment reads as under: 8. In our considered view, on the basis of decision of Supreme Court referred to supra upon which strong reliance is rightly placed by the learned counsel for the appellants and also in view of vested right accrued upon the land in question in favour of appellants the leasehold rights were granted and the said Rules have got statutory force. The determination of market value of granted land must be on the basis of Rule-23 but not Rule-17. Rule-17 is applicable to the grant of land in favour of fresh grantees but not in favour of lessees who had acquired vested right under the Rules, 1957. Therefore, we have to hold that determination of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR market value of the granted land must be reckoned which was prevalent at the time of grant of the same by lease under sub-rule (I) of Rule (iii) of 1957 Rules, this is what is referred to in Rule-23 of KLG Rules. In the absence of rule-23 also, appellants are liable to pay the value of land as fixed as on the date of grant of lcaschold rights in favour of the appellants. These aspects are not considered by the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of KAT', no doubt, various other decisions of the Supreme Court are referred to by him in the impugned order which have no relevance to the fact situation as the learned Single Judge did not examine the Rules of 1957, which have got enforceable character and conferred the vested statutory rights upon the appellants in respect of the land in question and similarly placed persons. Non-consideration of the said Rules of 1957 and the terms and conditions of the grant order upon which the vested rights are conferred upon the appellants & similarly placed persons are not examined and considered by the learned Single Judge at the time of passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the order of KAT must be revived, but fair submission is also made by the appellants counsel having regard to the potentiality of the land and market value of the land, the learned counsel for the owners have submitted that they would pay 300 times the price of the land revenue accessed per acre which was prevailing as on the date of grant. 8. Having taken note of the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ appeal, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR determination of market value of granted land must be on the basis of Rule 23 and not under Rule 17. Rule 17 is made applicable to the grant of land in favour of fresh grantees and not in respect of the grant of lease made earlier by the respondent authorities. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the fixation of the market value by the respondent authorities requires to be set aside in this aspect. 9. In so far as the imposition of the condition No.4 is concerned, the relevant date for imposing condition No.4 should be reckoned which was prevailing at the time of original grant made in favour of the petitioners herein and the same is also fortified in the aforementioned judgment by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, on both the grounds the petitioners have made out a case for interference in this writ petition. 10. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Division Bench in M.A.Sadananda Gowda's case (supra) and in the case of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR Rathnakara Shetty, (Annexure F) wherein, under identical circumstances, this Court has interfered with the order passed by the respondent No.3 and quashed the same and accordingly a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner or the competent Authority to re-fix the price having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) Order dated 07.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 (Annexure A) and order dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure B) issued by the respondent No.4 are hereby set aside and the writ of mandamus is issued to respondent - authorities to value the land fixed in terms of the original lease period as per the order dated 15.10.1958, as claimed by the petitioner at Annexure C to the writ petition. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24191 WP No. 2458 of 2025 HC-KAR iii) Respondents are directed to complete entire exercise within two months from the date of receipt of this order, in so far as fixation of price and non-alienation period are concerned. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76