D.M. NANJJAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus S.A. RAMAPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 346 · Decided: 20-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
D.M. NANJJAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
S.A. RAMAPPA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Karnataka Land Grant Rules, I 969 : Rules 4, 5 and 6. 
Grant of land-For better cultivation and enjoyment-Conditions to be 
fulfilled-Held : (i) whether the person is eligible; (ii) whether his land is 
adjacent or close to land to be allotted; and (iii) whether land is required 
for better enjoyment or cultivation-Rules 5 and 6 not applicable for grant 
of land to such special class of persons-Karnataka Land Revenue Act, I 964. 
Rule 2(15)-Sufficient holder-Means a person who holds not less 
than 4 hectares of wet land or 8 hectares of dry land 
Words and Phrases: 
E 
"Sufficient holder"-Meaning of-In the context of R.2(15) of the 
Karnataka Land Grant Rules, I 969. 
The appellant was granted the land in dispute by the Revenue authority 
under Rule 4 (2) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 for better 
cultivation of the land as the appellant's land was adjacent to the disputed 
F land. The Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the 
grant 
Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High 
Court, which was dismissed by Single Judge but allowed by the Division 
Bench. The Division Bench directed the Tehsildar to grant the disputed land 
G after taking into consideration the priorities under Ruis 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 . 
. Hence this appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
346 
•I
D.P. NANJJAPPA v. S.A. RAMAPPA [PHUKAN, J.] 
347 
HELD : 1. Though the Division Bench of the High Court has directed A 
the Tehsildar to grant land 'taking priority under Rule 5 read with Rule 6 
of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969', this direction is not in conformity 
with Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. The said direction is therefore, not 
sustainable in law. [350-E) 
2. For grant of land under Rule 4(2), what is necessary to be determined B 
is whether the person is eligible for grant of land under Rule 4(1), whether 
he has land adjacent or close to the 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 Rules 4, 5 and 6 it has to be held that while C 
granting land to such special class of persons under Rule 4(2), the provisions 
of Rules 5 and 6 viz., percentage of reservation and order of priority would 
not be applicable. [330-G-H] 
3. The appellant is holding 4 acres of land and, therefore, he would not 
come under the definition of"sufticient holder" vide Rule 2(15) as his holding D 
is less than four hectares. Therefore, the appellant has fulfilled all the 
conditions of Rule 4(2) includiitg the eligibility criterion No (iv) of Rule 4(1 ). 
Therefore, the grant of land to the appellant was in accordance with Rule 
4(2) and the land was rightly granted to the appellant. (351-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5215 of E 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.1998 in WA 6427/97 of the 
High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore. 
Shankar Divate for the Petitioner. 
P.P. Singh and N. Ganpathy for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of 
Kamataka High Court in the Writ Appeal. The Division Bench allowed the 
Writ Petition by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 
F 
G 
Briefly stated, the land in dispute was granted to the appellant by the H 
348 
~SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A revenue authority under sub-rule (2) of rule 4 of the Kamataka Land Grant 
Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') framed under Section 197 of the Kamataka 
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, 
B 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.