http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: D.M.NANJJAPPPA (DEAD) BY LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.A.RAMAPPA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/09/2000

BENCH: S.N.Phukan, S.S.M.Quadri

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     PmJKAN, J.

     Leave granted.

     This  appeal  is directed against the judgment of  the Division  Bench of Kaniataka High Court in the Writ  Appeal. The  Division  Bench  allowed the Writ Petition  by  setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

     Briefly stated, the land in dispute was granted to the appellant  by  the revenue authority’ under sub-rule (2)  of rule  4  of the Karnataka,Land Grant Rules, 1969 (for  short ’the  Rules’) framed under Section i97 of-ihe Karnataka Land Revenue  Act.   1964, for better cultivation of the land  as the land of the appellant was adjacent to the disputed land. The  grant was confirmed both by the Deputy Commissioner and the  Appellate Tribunal.  Being aggrieved, respondent  filed the Writ Petition before the- High Court which was dismissed by  the  learned  Single Judge but allowed by  the  Division Bench.   The Division Bench directed the Tehsildar to  grant the  disputed  land  after  taking  into  consideration  the priorities  under rule 5 read with rule 6 of the Rules.  The Division  Bench also held that as the appellant was  already having  4 acres of land he could not be said to be poor or a landless person.

     To decide the dispute, it will be pertinent to extract relevant  provisions of the Rules viz.  clauses (8) and (15) of rule 2, rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules.

     "2(8)  "insufficient holder" means a person who is not sufficient holder."

     ’’2(15)  "Sufficient  holder" means a person who  owns not less than four hectares of garden or wet land possessing facilities  for  assured irrigation or 8 hectares of dry  or rained wet land."

     *’4.    Persons  cligiblo  for   grant  of  land   for agriculturai  purposes  :- (1) Lands available for  disposal may  be granted for agricultural purposes under these  rides to a person,-

     (i)  who  has attamed the age of eighteen.;  and  (ii) whose  gross  annual  income does not  exceed  rupees  eight

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

thousand;  and,

     (in)   who  is  either  a  bona   fide   agriculturist cultivating  the land personally or has bona fide  intention to  take  up  personal cultivation;  and (iv) who is  not  a sufficient holder:

     Provided  that  in  the   case  of  ex-servicemen  and soldiers,  lands may be granted, if the gross income of  the applicant  exceed Rupees eight thousand but less than rupees twelve thousand.

     Provided  further  that the extent of land granted  to any  person shall not together with the land already held by such  person  exceed the limits prescribed for a  sufficient holder in rule 2(15).

     (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) by  any person may be granted the land adjacent or close  to the  land already held by him on collection of market  value as  on  the date of grant to be determined by the  authority granting  the land, if such land is.  in the opinion of such authority   required   for  better   enjoyment   or   better cultivation of the land so held:  (emphasis supplied)

     Provided that no such grant shall be made of an extent exceeding in die case of wet or garden land half hectare and in  the  case  of dry land one hectare and  that  the  total extent  of land held after such grant.  does not exceed  the ceiling  area  according  to the Kamataka  Land  Reform  Act 1961."

     "5.   Reservations:-  (  I ) The  land  available  for disposal  in  any  village shall be  granted  observing  the reservation indicated below:-

     (i) Ex-servicemen and Soldiers 10 per cent

     (ii)  Persons  belonging  to   Scheduled  Ca-stes  and Scheduled Tribes , 50 percent

     (ii-a)  Backward Tribes (iii) Political sufferers (iv) Others

     5 per cent 10 per cent 25 per cent

     (2)  Where the extent reserved under (ii) and (iii) is in  excess  of the extent that can be granted to the  person belonging to those categories, the excess land shall be with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner be disposed of among persons in category (iv).

     (3)  Notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (1).   where the land available tor disposal in village is less than four hectares,  the  whole of such land shall be disposed  of  to persons  belonging  to  the Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled Tribes  who are ordinarily residents of such village or  who reside  in  the  neighbouring village and where  no  persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes apply, it shall be disposed to others."

     "6.   Order  of Priority:- In disposing of land  among persons  belonging to Category (iv) of sub-rule (1) of  rule 5, the foUowmg order of priority shall be observed:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

     (i)  landless  persons  residing in the  village  (ii) insufficient  holders  residing  in   the  village;    (iii) landless  persons residing in other villages in the same  or adjacent taluk:  (iv) others:

     Provided that when Government directs under Section 71 of the Act that in any particular area Government land shall be  reserved  for  grant to displaced  persons  and  tenants affected by any Government Project, provisions of rule 5 and 6 will not apply."

     Rule  4 defines the persons who would be eligible  for gra.nt  of land tor agricultural purposes.  Rule 5 fixes the percentage  of  reservation to be maintained while  granting land  to  the categories mentioned in sub-rule (1)  of  this rule.   For  disposal  of land among  persons  belonging  to category  IV  i.e.  ’others’ in sub-rule (1) of rule 5,  the priority mentioned in rule 6 has to be followed.

     Though  the Division Bench of High Court has  directed the  Tehsildar  to grant land ’taking priority under rule  5 read with rule 6, first to

     landless  poor  persons.  Scheduled  Caste,  Scheduled Tribes:   and  backward  class  persons  and  thereafter  to others’.,  this direction is not in conformity with rules 4, 5 and 6.  The said direction, therclorc.  is not sustainable in law.

     The  appellant  herein prayed lor grant of  land  only under  sub-  rule  (2) of rule 4.  Under  this  sub-rule.any person may be granted the land adjacent or close to the land already  held  by  him  subject  to  fulfillment  of  others conditions of the said sub-rule and on the payment of market value of land if in the opinion of he authority such land is required  tor better enjoyment or better cultivation of  the land.   In  case  of grant of other  land  for  agricultural purposes,  the  grantee has to pay price at  a  concessional rate  to  be fixed under sub-rule (1) of rule 12 but  market value  of the land has to be paid under sub-rule(2) of  rule 4.   For grant of land under sub-rule (2) of rule 4, what is necessary  to  be  determined  is  whether  tlie  person  is eligible  for  grant of land under sub-rule (1) of  rule  4, whether he has land adjacent or close to land to be allotted and  whether  the land is required for better  enjoyment  or better cultivation.  If these conditions are fulfilled, land can be allotted on collection of market value of the land by the revenue authority’’.  Reading the above rules viz.  4, 5 and 6, we have no hesitation to hold that

     while  granting land to this special class of  persons under  sub.-rule-  (2) of rule 4, the provisions of rules  5 and  6 viz.  percentage of reservation and order of priority would not be applicable.

     ’though  the  Division Bench was of the view that  the appollani could not be said to be poor or a landless person, we arc of the opinion that this consideration, is irrelevant for  the present purpose as we have to ascertain whether the appellant  is eligible for grant of land under sub-rule  (2) of  rule  4.  The revenue authority on facts held  that  the appellant  has got land adjacent to the disputed land and in tact  it  was  found  that  the  appellant  was  cultivating disputed  land  for  about 10 years prior to date  of  grant ofland.   The  appellant also paid market price as fixed  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the revenue authority for the disputed land.  No dispute has been  raised  regarding eligibility of the  appellant  under clause  (i) to (iii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 4.  in view  of the  observations  of the Division Bench of the  High  Court that  the appellant could not be said to be poor or landless person,  we  have  to  consider   whether  appellant  is   a sufficient  holder  ofland or not for being  eligible  under clause  (iv) of sub-ruled) of rule 4.  As per the record and as  noticed  by the Division Bench of High Court,  appellant holds 4 acres ofland, therefore, he

     would not come under defmition of ’’sufficient holder" vide.clauso  (15) of rule 2 as his holding is less than four hectares.   Therefore,  the appellant has fulfilled all  the conditions  of  sub-rule  (2)   including  the  eligibility’ criterion No.  (iv) of sub-rule (1) of rule 4.  According to the  revenue  authorities  the  land  of  the  appellant  is adjacent  to  the  disputed land and he  would  require  the disputed  land  for better cultivation.  Therefore, we  hold that  grant of land to the appellant was in accordance  with sub-rule  (2) of rule 4 and the land was rightly granted  to the appellant

     For  the  reasons  stated above we find merit  in  the present  appeal  and  accordingly it is allowed  bv  setting aside the impugned judgment.  Cost on the parties.