STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS versus KRISHNOJI REO AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 874 · Decided: 25-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'If 
I 
A 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS .. 
v. 
KRISHNOJI REO AND ANR. 
MARCH 25, 1996 
.. 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
" ' 
~ 
Land Laws 
Bombay Paragana and Kulka1miki Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950: 
c 
Ss.4, 4A-Unassessed and uncultivated waste land-Assistant Commis-
• 
sioner assigned 109 acres 34 guntas of land of one survey number for grazing 
purpose for village cattle and JOO acres for afforestation-Deputy Commis-
sioner by suo motu order cancelled the orde1-fiigh Court directing to grant 
201 acres 34 guntas land to respondent-field, 1ight of watan under s.4 is 
D subject to right created in s.4A-Order granting 100 acres of land for affores-
talion and 109 acres and 34 guntas for grazing purpose having become final 
and not challenged by ivatandar, cannot be challenged due to reversal of the 
order by Deputy Comnzissioner in exercise of suo niotu powe~Watandar 
could have challenged only with regard to residue of land which should have 
E been considered-Matter remitted to High Court for disposal of writ petition 
in accordance with law. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5345 of 
1996. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.90 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A No. 1941of1986. 
)-
M. Veerappa for the Arpellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division 
Bench of the Karnataka High Court made on June 11, 1990 in Writ Appeal 
No. 283/1986. The controversy is regulated by the Bombay Paragana and 
H Kulkarrniki Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950 (for short, the 'Act'). The land 
874 
STATEv. KRISHNOJI REO 
875 
bearing Survey No. 87 of Revadihal village was unassessed and uncultivable A 
waste land _as per the _Mutation Entry 313 dated August 20, 1960. The 
Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad in his order dated June 17, 1964 as-
j 
" 
) 
., 
.. signed an extent of 109 acres 34 guntas of land in the said Survey for public . 
purpose, namely, grazing purposes for the village cattle. Ori 6.4.1964, it was 
decided that an extent of 100 acres of land in the said Survey be transfe_rr.e~ 
to the Forest Department for afforestation. The· Government in it~. order .. · B 
dated August i, 1964 granted actual possession of 100' acres of land to be 
handed over to the Forest Department. It was entered in the Re~ei.me 
records by Mutation Entry No. 413 dated August 1, 1966. The Divisional 
Commissioner in his order dated November 27, 1964 granted 92 acres out 
of 100 acres to 23 persons for cultivation and remanded the m'atter for fresh C 
enquiry. On March 4, 1968, the Assistant Commissioner regranted an 
extent of 201 acres 34 guntas of land in the same Survey number to the 
·respondents setting apart an area. of _109 acres 34 guntas for grazing 
purposes of the village catties and he alsii reserved 100 acres for the Forest ' 
Department . f()r afforestation. The· Deputy Commissioner by suo _motu D 
order d:jted January 24, 1977 has cancelled the order of the Assistant 
· Commissioner dated March 4, 1968. 
Feeli~g agg~ieved, the respo~dent filed Writ pe\ition No. 2236/77 in 
the High Court. The l~arned sitigkJudge of the High Court by order dated 
December 4, 1985 has partly allowed. the "1rit petition and directed to grant E 
an extent of 201 acres 34. gtintas to the respondent. When the appellant 
filed appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by 
special leave. 
Whereas the first respondent has been served, whereabouts of the 
F 
second respondent are not known. So he must be deemed to have been 
served. They are not appearing either in person or through counsel. In view 
of the fact that the orde_r granting 100 ,acres for affo_restation and 109.34 
guntas for grazing purposes having become filial andnot challenged earlier 
by the Watandar, they cannot chalienge .the same .du~ to re~~rsal of the 
· earlier order by Deputy Collll)lissioner in ex~rcise of suo m'atu power. In G 
the writ petition, they could not have challenge the orde!. They could have 
challenged only with regard to the residue of the land which should have 
been considered. The reason being that the right of the Watan under 
Section 4 is subject to the rights created in Section4-A _of the Act. The 
Division Bench and the learned single Judge, therefore, have not properly H 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A considered the controversy. Since the respondents arc not appearing, the 
orders of the High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.