CUSTOM SEARCH

KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ARTICLE PUBLISHED ON 20-12-2010 BY VIJAY KARNATAKA

Vijaya Karnataka Article on Land Reforms 20-12-2010

CONVERSION CIRCULAR

Government of Karnataka Conversion Circulars

LAND CONVERSION RULES OF 1999

KARNATAKA GOVT Conversion Circular 1999

THE KARNATAKA COURT-FEE AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1958.

THE KARNATAKA COURT-FEE AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1958.

VERIFICATION OF TITLE OF LAND - MODEL INSTRUCTIONS - FOR KARNATAKA

VERIFICATION OF TITLE OF LAND

GOVERNMENT LAND SHALL BE DISPOSED BY ONLY PUBLIC AUCTION

AFTER 08-05-2007 FROM KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE AMENDMENT ACT 2005


"69A. Disposal of lands or other property belonging to the State Government by public auction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 of the Act subject to such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf the State Government or the Authorised Officer may dispose of valuable land or other property belonging to the State Government under section 67 or otherwise by public auction.
Provided that heritage sites and buildings or relics shall not be disposed under this section. (2) The Deputy Commissioner or the Authorised Officer may by order confirm the sale under sub-section (1) on the expiration of thirty days from the date of sale of the immovable property.

Explanation.- For the purpose of this section valuable land means those lands which if auctioned shall fetch values far above the normal price."

REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE DUTY BOUND TO MAKE REVENUE RECORD ENTRIES - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Mahadevappa And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary, Revenue Department And Ors. ILR 2008 KAR 1750 It is needles to say it is duty bound on the part of the revenue authorities and the Sub-Registrar as per Section 128(4) to invariably intimate the fact of transfer of interest or ownership from the first party to the second party to the concerned revenue authorities so that concerned revenue authorities will make the mutation entries in the concerned register and also proper entries in the revenue register after following the procedure as per Section 129 of the Land Revenue Act. Ultimately, any intended purchaser would get himself verified about the status of the property whether before he could go for any such purchase or seek for transfer of interest from the person who has got a right, title and interest so that he will not be mislead. For want of these entries in the revenue records and for want of proper information from the concerned Department of the Government, often purchasers are being mislead and get into problems and hardship. It is high time to intimate the Revenue Department and the concerned Department to meticulously follow the procedure as provided under Section 128 & 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also it should be made mandatory as a matter of responsibility on the part of the Government to save the public from the precarious situation and also there shall be timely action by the revenue authorities without there being any delay on their part in making entries in the mutation register and other registers in the revenue office and in the Corporation/Municipality in city limits to avoid future complications.

JUSTICE N KUMAR OBSERVES LAND MAFIA- LEGAL ADVISORS MAFIA- GOVERNMENT INACTION- GOOD DEVELOPMENTS

In The State Of Karnataka VS H.B. Munivenkatappa 2007 (4) KarLJ 439 JUSTICE N KUMAR OBSEERVED:- 

GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC DUPED BY OFFICIALS
“The officials of the Government, the advocates who are conducting the cases on behalf of the Government and others have let down the interest of the Government and public. Under these circumstances, I am of the view it would be appropriate to refer the entries in the original ledger book where Form No. 7 is noted and orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk in all those cases at any rate as contained in this book, for enquiry to the aforesaid committee which may throw some light on the way the tribunal, the Government officials and others have discharged their duties in protecting public property, and if illegalities are found to take steps to restore the land to the Government.”


DO NOT REGULARIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS REMOVE INJUSTICE
“The judiciary is respected not on account of its power to regularize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. If appeals brought by the Government are lost on account of delay, no person is individually affected, but what in the ultimate analysis suffers is, the public interest. The law of Limitation is no doubt the same for private citizen as well as for Governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take the responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But some what different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to the acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. On account of impersonal machinery, no one Page 0797 incharge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file pushing and passing on the buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represent collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The Courts therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression of sufficient cause. Refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out, at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. The technicalities of procedure should yield to considerations which would promote public interest and substantial justice. The Courts should decide the matters on merits, unless it is hopelessly without any merit.”


DECREE WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS NULLITY
“It is also a fundamental principle, that a decree passed by the Court without jurisdiction is a nullity. Its validity can be set up whenever and where ever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction whether it is technical or territorial or whether it is in respect of subject matter of action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. Nullity has to be understood in the sense that it is ultra vires the power of the court passing the decree and not merely avoidable decree. If the decree strikes at the jurisdiction of the Court or the Court lacks jurisdiction, it strikes at the very root of the authority to pass the order or the decree. The decree passed by such a Court is a nullity and non est.”

PUBLIC PROPERTY NOT HANDLED PROPERLY
In The State Of Karnataka VS H.B. Munivenkatappa 2007 (4) KarLJ 439 JUSTICE N KUMAR OBSEERVED:- “The material on record discloses at every stage the persons who were entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the public property have let down the Government. The way the litigation has been fought and the way the Government representatives and their counsel have let down the public interest, is shocking. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Lokayuktha, it issued a clean chit to those officials saying that the public interest has not suffered. There cannot be a worst situation than this. A mighty Government rendered helpless by such advise and breach of trust. If the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal exists as contended by the plaintiff, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner who is the Chairman of the Tribunal has failed to notice the aforesaid statutory provisions which confers no right to the vested land in the inamdar and the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in respect of a tank bed. He is a party to this order of grant granting public property to the plaintiff. When the suit was filed for Page 0798 declaration of title on the basis of the said document though appropriate defence were taken in the written statement, the same is not pursued as they were expected to and in the result a decree came to be passed. Though it was stated in the written statement filed in the suit, steps would be taken to challenge the order of the Land Tribunal, no writ petition was filed, a serious lapse. The learned Government Advocate who conducted the case on behalf of the Government instead of advising suitably the Government to prefer an appeal, gave his opinion that it is not a fit case for an appeal. The Director of Public Prosecution (Civil) who was expected to apply his mind and take an independent decision has failed to discharge his duties and he has concurred with the opinion given by the learned Government Advocate not to prefer an appeal. It appears thereafter the concerned file did not reach the Law Department nor any opinion was sought from the Law Department. Even when the matter was being agitated in this Court in writ proceedings, advocate who was incharge of these matters appears to have not applied his mind properly.”


PRAISE FOR GOOD OFFICIALS – ALL ARE NOT BAD – LOKAYUKTA’S BLINDNESS
“However, it is heartening to note that there are some officials still left in the administration who have a commitment in life and who think about public good. The said officiate at the relevant point of time did notice that the schedule land is a Government land and it is a 'sarkari kere' and mutation entries cannot be made in the name of the decree holder. They resisted the attempt to get the mutation entries made. It is only when arrest warrants were issued against them for disobeying the decree of a Civil Court, the Government realised the blunder they have committed and the Law Officers who betrayed its trust. Then they have approached the Law Department, sought for their opinion and on consideration of the entire material the Law Department gave its advice on 22.12.2003 to the effect that it is a fit case for preferring the appeal. On 7.1.2004 the Government accorded sanction to prefer the appeal. When Lokayukta was requested to investigate the circumstances in which no appeal was filed earlier, the Lokayukta had issued an endorsement to the effect that there are no laches on the part of any Government servant and that it appears that no loss has been caused to the State. It is thereafter the appeal is filed with an application for condonation of delay.”


LEGAL ADVISORS OF GOVERNMENT GOT BLOW IN THIS CASE
“A beginner in the legal profession would know, that against a judgment and decree of declaration of title, an appeal lies and not a revision. This is the type of legal advise which has been given to the Government over a period of nearly ten years. "It is a case of salt having lost its savour". The judicial Page 0799 process is used to acquire rights over the Government property, a clear case of abuse of judicial process.”

GOVERNMENT FACING CHALLENGES WITH IN/OUT IN LEGAL FIELD
“Karnataka being one of the progressive State in the Union of India, Bangalore being the center of attraction to the whole world, unfortunately, the professional legal advise given to the Government is of this nature. It is no wonder that the value of landed property in Bangalore is more than gold and the real estate business is the most thriving business in the city of Bangalore. The State Legislature has to appoint a Committee to go into this problem of grabbing of Government lands which runs to thousands of acres involving crores of rupees. The said Committee has submitted an interim report blaming the officials and lawyers in-charge of the case and others being a privy to these illegal activities right under the nose of the seat of power. Now that multinational companies are competing with each other to have a foot hold in Bangalore, with the liberalization, globalization and privatization, having its impact on all walks of life in the society, whether the Government is capable of meeting the challenges in the field of law and in protecting its people and its properties, with the kind of legal assistance they have. There is no dearth for legal talent in the State. The problem is the mind to utilise the said talent. This case should be an eye opener to the Government. It is for them to take appropriate steps to overhaul their revenue, and legal department, including the quality of the Advocates they choose to represent them in Courts, if the Government is sincere in protecting the public and its properties.”

ONLY LAND IN POSSESSION OF OWNER CAN BE CONVERTED

1969 (2) Mys.L.J. 184 - Smt. Puttamma and Ors. v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and Anr. wherein it was held as under:
To contend that the conversion of the land could be done only if the landlord was in possession of the same; the land in possession of a tenant could be converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose by the landlord if the tenant did not opposes such application. Their lordships held in under:
Section 95(2) does not authorise the Deputy Commissioner to accord permission for conversion without reference to the inability on the part of the applicant for conversion, to make the conversion he proposes to make, by reason of his not being in possession of the land. If, a tenant or a sub-tenant is in possession and the landlord cannot secure possession except after the eviction of the tenant or the sub-tenant, the proper stage at which an application for conversion could be made is normally the stage when the landlord secures possession from the tenant or the sub-tenant as the case may be.

LAND CONVERSION-GREEN BELT- HIGH COURT DECISION IN - Special Deputy Commissioner vs Bhargavi Madhavan ILR 1987 KAR 1260



JUDGMENT



Rama Jois, J.



1. These appeals which involve the question of the legality of the grant of permission for conversion of vast areas of agricultural lands situate in the green belt area within the Bangalore City Planning area for non-agricultural use, are a glaring example to show how good cases for the Government are allowed to be lost before the Courts and public Interest is allowed to suffer which could thereafter be attributed to decisions of the Court.




1A. These two Writ Appeals are by the Special Dy. Commissioner, Bangalore Dist, Bangalore and the State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, against the order of the Learned Single Judge dismissing the two Writ Petitions filed by them in which the validity of the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had been challenged by the appellants.



2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :
Smt. Bhargavi Madhavan, one of the respondents in the appeals, is the owner of 15 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy. No. 19 of Guni Agrahara Village, Hersaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District. She had made an application seeking permission for conversion of the aforesaid land for non-agricultural use under Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act ('the Act' for short). That application was rejected by an order dated 12-12-1983 by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. Sri Muthukutty Vaidhyan is the owner of 15 acres 34 guntas of land of the same Village. He also applied for grant of per-mission for conversion of the land for non-agricultural use under Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Act. That application was also rejected by the Special Deputy Commissioner, by another order dated 12-12-83 (vide Annexure-B). Aggrieved by this order respondents herein had preferred earlier appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal not being satisfied with the reasons given by the Special Deputy Commissioner, set aside the order and remitted the matter for reconsideration. Again, the Special Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 24-5-85 rejected the application of the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents again appealed to the Tribunal, The Tribunal found that none of the reasons given by the Special Deputy Commissioner for rejecting the permission were tenable. Having regard to the reasons given by the Special Deputy Commissioner that the view of the Director of Town Planning was against the grant of permission, the Tribunal pointed out that the view taken by the Special Deputy Commissioner was in the teeth of the Judgment of this Court in 1974 (1) Kar. L.J. Short Notes Item No. 67. As regards the reason given by the Special Deputy Commissioner that granting of permission would create a mushroom growth of residential pockets all round Bangalore and create liability on the local bodies and the Government for providing basic civic amenities and might lead to insanitary conditions and creation of sites of inadequate dimensions resulting in health hazards to the residents, the Tribunal was of the view that this could have been remedied by imposing conditions which he had the authority to impose under Clause (4) of Section 95 of the Act. In the result, the Tribunal allowed the appeals. The operative portion of the order reads :

"Both the appeals are allowed and the order of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, passed in AIN/SR(N) 51 and 52/83-84 dated 24-5-85 is set aside. The appellants are entitled to have their lands diverted for non-agricultural use and the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore shall sanction the diversion of these lands for non-agricultural use subject of course of imposing such conditions as are permissible within Clause (4) of Section 95 of the Act so as to secure the health, safety and convenience and in order to secure that the dimensions, arrangement and accessibility of the sites are adequate for health and convenience of the occupiers and that they do not contravene the provisions of any law relating to town and country planning or the erection of buildings and shall also levy the conversion fine as prescribed under the rules. No costs The original Judgment be placed in Appeal No 241/85 and a copy thereof shall be placed in the other connected appeal No 212/85 for purpose of reference and completion of records."

Aggrieved by the said order the Special Deputy Commissioner and the State of Karnataka preferred two Writ Petitions. By order dated 26th June 1986 the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge who held that the grounds on which the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application were found to be factually incorrect and therefore there was no ground to entertain the petition. It is against that order these two appeals have been preferred.


3. The ground urged in the appeals was that the permission directed to be accorded by the Triblunal was in clear infraction of Section 95(3A) of the Act, according to which permission for conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural use could not be granted as the lands in question fell within the green belt area. The provision on which reliance is placed by the appellants were introduced into the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by Amendment Act of 1984 on 28th April 1984. They read :

"(3A) The State Government may, with a view to protecting and improving the environment, by notification declare as Green Belt any area lying within the limits of or within the prescribed distance from the limits of the Cities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1977) or City Municipalities, Town Municipalities and Notified areas constituted or deemed to be constituted under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1964) and different distances may be so prescribed for each such City, City Municipality, Town Mnnicipality or Notified Area.

(3B) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Section, no permission shall be granted or held for the purpose of agriculture lying within the limits of the Green Belt to any other purpose."

This provision empowered the Government to declare as 'Green Belt' any area lying within the limits of the prescribed distance from, the limits of the cities. In order that green belt is brought into existence, two conditions should be fulfilled. They are :-
"(1) The distance from the limits of the cities named with in which the Green Belt area could be declared by the State Government by issuing an appropriate notification has to be prescribed by making a rule.

(2) After such prescription, to issue a notification specifying the actual green belt area within such distance."

The object and purpose of the provision is obvious. It is intended to give environmental protection to growing cities and is designed in the interest of public health, protection and development of greenery for that purpose etc. Therefore, the provision cast a duty on the part of the State Government to implement the Section without delay as any delay would certainly be utilised by those who are eager to get their agricultural land lying in the viciniiy converted for non-agricultural use and by such action the provision would be met with a fait accompli. In fact the main ground urged in the appeal is that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner rejecting the permission sought for was correct and the order of the Tribunal contravenes Section 95(3A) and (3B) of the Act.


4. But to our dismay, the desire of the Government to implement the provision enacted by the Legislature is found expressed only in the grounds of appeal. Whereas its inaction as also actions are such as would frustrate the object and purpose of the provision. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the State that though the two sub-sections came into force on 28-4-1984, it is, only after more than 1 1/2 years thereafter i.e. on 24-10-1985 the State Government framed the rules prescribing the distance within which Green Belt area could be declared. The said rules read thus :

"Whereas the draft of the following rules further to amend the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 was published as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 197 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1964) in notification No GSR 101 (RD 48 LGP 84 dated 18th April, 1985) published in Part IV-2C (i) of the Karnataka Gazette (extraordinary) dated 18th April 1985, inviting objections or suggestions from all the persons likely to be affected thereby on or after one month from the date of publication in the Official Gazette ; AND WHEREAS, the said Gazette was made available to the public on 18th April, 1985 ; And Whereas, the objections and suggestions received have been considered by the Government ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 197 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1964), the Government of Karnataka hereby makes the following rules namely :-
(1) Title and commencement -- 
(1) These rules may be called The Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1985.
(2) They shall come into force at once.

2. Insertion of new Rule 102 B : After Rule 102 A Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, the following rule shall be inserted namely :--

"102 B Limits of green belt : The State Government may in respect of the cities, city municipalities, town municipalities or notified areas specified in column (2) of the Table Below, declare any area lying within the limits thereof or within the distance from such limits specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) of the said Table as green belt under Sub-section (3A) of Section 95 of the Act.
TABLE
__________________________________________________________________
Sl. No. Places Distances
__________________________________________________________________
1 2 3
__________________________________________________________________
1. Bangalore City - under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 18 Kms.
2. The Cities of Belgaum, Gulbarga, Hubli-Dharwad, Mangalore & Mysore res-pectively under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,1976 10 Kms.
3. All City Municipalities under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 8 Kms.
4. All Town Municipalities - under theKarnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. 8 Kms
5. Any Notified area - under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 6 Kms
__________________________________________________________________

"NOTE : The distances specified in column (3) shall be calculated by drawing a line parallel to the contour of the limits of the Corporations, cities, town municipalities and notified areas specified in column (2)."
5. As can be seen from the contents of the notifications, as far as Bangalore City constituted under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, is concerned, the distance prescribed is 18 Kms from the Corporation area. After prescribing of the distance by promulgating the above rule, it was necessary for the State Government to issue a notification declaring Green Belt area. The learned Counsel for respondents submitted that till date no such notification has been issued by the State Government and this fact is not controverted by the learned Counsel for the State. The learned Counsel for respondents submitted that after the promulgation of the Rules on 24-10-1985 far from issuing any notification declaring the Green Belt, the State Government had issued Circular dated 29-7-1986, by which the revenue authorities were informed that they were not within law in refusing the applications for conversion within the prescribed distance from the cities concerned, as the Government had not yet issued the notification declaring and specifying the Green belt area. 

The said Circular reads :


GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No. RD 48 LGP 84
Karnataka Government Secretariat,
5th Floor, 3rd Stage,
M.S. Bldgs., Bangalore
Dated: 29-7-1986

CIRCULAR

Sub : Sanction of diversion/conversion of Agricultural lands into non-agricultural use within the zones of "Green Belt" - clarifications thereon.


It has come to the notice of Government that applications for conversion/diversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes are being rejected by the competent Revenue Authorities on the ground that the said agricultural land are lying within the area declared as "Green Belt" on the basis of Government Notification No. RD 48 LGP 84 dated 24th October, 1985.

2. The new sub-sections (3A) and (3B) were inserted in Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by the amendment made under the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act No. 23 of 1984). Sub-section (3B) is intended to prohibit absolutely the diversion of any land lying within the area declared as Green Belt, to any non-agricultural purpose. Sub-section (3A) provides the mechanism for declaring an area as Green Belt.

3. In order to bring into existence the Green Belt, two actions have to be initiated and completed by the State Government. The first one is to make a rule for identifying the limits within which an area can be declared as Green Belt. This has been done vide Government notification No. RD 48 LGP 84 dated: 24th October, 1985, where under the necssasary rules were issued. The other action which is necessary is to issue another notification declaring as Green Belt particular areas lying within the limits of cities and towns or within the prescribed distance from such limits. This notification is yet to be issued. Consequently, there is no area at present which in the eye of law can be regarded as a declared Green Belt.

4 In view of the above legal position, it is hereby clarified that till such time as the notification necessary to actually declare a given area as Green Belt is issued, as contemplated under Sub-section (3A) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, it would be impermissible to reject an application for diversion of agricultural land for other purposes in cases where permission for the diversion can otherwise be given under Section 95 of the Act Applications for diversion received under Section 95 of the Act may be examined under that section and either rejected or granted by invoking grounds permissible under the said section and the rules concerning such diversion, and the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act. If, however, it is found that permission can be accorded under Section 95, then such permission cannot be refused now solely on the ground that the area concerned is lying within a Green Belt, as in the eye of law there is no such Green Belt at present. These instructions would hold good till the notification required for declaring an area as Green Belt is actually issued."

6. While this is the Circular issued by the Government on 29-7-1986, on this very day the Government Advocate had made a submission before this Court, which is recorded while admitting the appeal. The relevant portion of the order reads :

"One of the grounds urged in these two appeals is that the permission if granted will be in contravention of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act No. 23 of 1984).

Our attention has been invited to Sub-section 3(B), which has been inserted in Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which imposes an embargo on permission to be granted to divert any land or part thereof assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture lying within the limits of Green Belt to any other purpose.
Counsel has produced before us prima facie material to show that the land in question is located within the Green Belt area."
On 13-8-1986, the respondents produced the aforesaid Circular dated 29-7-1986 and prayed for vacating the interim order and the Government Advocate sought adjournment When the matter came up on 18-8-1986, the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice and Venkatesh, J, made the following order :

"We are extremely sorry to note that the officers concerned, who have instructed the Learned Government Advocate that there exists a green belt area, appear to have misled the Court.

This is a case in which proper action should be taken against the officers concerned.
The Learned Government Advocate must give the names of the officers concerned and they should appear before this Court at 10.30 a.m. on Friday the 22nd instant, for taking action under contempt proceedings."
(Underlining by us)

Thereafter, on 19-8-1986, the Bench made the following order :
"Pursuant to our order dated August 18, 1986, the Government Advocate has kept the officers in person in Court. He has also produced some Circular dated August 20, 1984, with a plea the officers were guided by the said Circular setting out the green belt area in the Bangalore North and South Taluks and that they had no intention to misguide the Government Advocate or the Court nor they had misguided him.
We have perused the Circular dated August 20, 1984. It gives some indication about the green-belt area ear marked for Bangalore. In the circumstances, we do not want to proceed against the officers. No further action is called for."
Post the appeal for hearing on 22-8-1986."

7. At the hearing, the non-issue of a notification under Section 95(3A) declaring the green belt area and the issue of Circular dated 29-7-1986 was not disputed. The only submission made was that the Circular dated 29-7-1986 was kept in abeyance by Circular dated 29-10-1986 for two months and by Circular dated 4-1-1987 it was kept in abeyance till January 1987 and by Circular dated 3rd March, 1987 it was kept in abeyance till 31st March 1987. But the fact remains, there is no declaration of Green Belt in respect of any of the cities under Section 95(3A) of the Land Revenue Act till now. Thus, though the legislative intention and purpose as is evident from Section 95(3A) of the Act was for protecting the environment of fast growing cities and the provisions came into force as early as on 28-4-1984 itself, the intent and purpose has remained unimplemented on account of the inaction on the part of the State Government. As pointed out earlier, the Government took more than 1 1/2 years just to pre scribe the distance by making an amendment to the Rules on 24-10-1985. Even after the promulgation of the Rules with such great delay, the State Government has not issued the notification specifying the Green Belt till date, though it could have been done by issuing a notification forthwith thereafter. In the meanwhile, as made out by the Learned Counsel for the respondents, innumerable cases permission for conversion have been granted both before and after the Circular dated 29-7-1986. To what extent the provision has been frustrated could be revealed only in an inquiry instituted for that purpose.

8. These circumstances make us to express our deep anguish at the frustration of public interest brought about by the failure to specify the green belt. What is intriguing is that though the Government is contending before this Court that the Green Belt has been brought into existence by virtue of Section 95(3A) of the Land Revenue Act, it has not made any declaration for reasons best known to it and is telling all its officers that there was no green belt and thereby causing the defeat of the legislative mandate incorporated in Section 95(3A) and (3B) and furnishing a ground to the respondents to get these appeals dismissed.

8.A The learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that large number of such permissions have been granted by the first appellant-Deputy Commissioner before and after the issue of the Circular dated 29-7-1986 under the direction of the second appellant - State Government. He has produced one such order dated 10-3-1986, by which the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, accorded permission for conversion of an extent of 30 acres of land for non-agricultural use situated within 18 Kms. from the City of Bangalore. The relevant portion of the order reads :
(Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced.
required.)

The order shows that it was issued pursuant to the direction of the Government dated 10-12-1985.

9. In the circumstances and for the reasons aforesaid, we dictated an order on 9-3-1987 dismissing these appeals observing that if the Government was failing in these appeals it was only on account of its failure in discharging its duty to implement Section 95(3A) and (3B). We also observed that by the time the Government issues the notification, all the agricultural lands in the proposed green belt might be converted for non-agricultural use leaving the 'Green Belt' only in the Section and in the notification, if issued.

10. But before the fate of these appeals were sealed by the transcription of the order and our signing it, we discovered a ground which the appellants, for reasons best known to them, had not urged either in the grounds of appeal or at the time of hearing, which would have ensured the allowing of these appeals. This makes the history of these cases a mystery and the action and inaction of the Government more and more curious.

11. After we dictated the order as indicated above and proceeded to pass an order dismissing these appeals, another batch of appeals, namely, Writ Appeal Nos. 2396 to 2338 of 1986 presented by the State Government itself came up for hearing on 16th March, 1987. We noticed that in the Memorandum of appeals in those cases, the State Government, in, respect of the Bangalore City Planning area, was relying on the Comprehensive Development Plan ('the CDP' for short) approved and published under the provisions of sub-section(4) of Section 23 of the Karnataka Country and Town Planning Act ('the Planning Act' for short), according to which the land concerned in the said appeals as well as in these appeals fell within the 'Green Belt Area' earmarked under the C.D.P. approved for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and contending that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in issuing a direction to the Special Deputy Commissioner to grant conversion and further in support of the said contention the State Government relied on a Judgment delivered by Doddakale-gowda, J, in Writ Petition Nos. 17132 to 17140 of 1984, dated 29-8-1985, -- State of Karnataka v. Jayashree. In the said case in which the State Government had challenged the legality of a similar order of the Appellate Tribunal issuing a direction to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, to grant permission for conversion of land for non-agricultural use, it relied upon the Comprehensive Development Plan approved under Section 23 of the Planning Act, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that in view of the Comprehensive Development Plan, the Deputy Commissioner could not exercise any of his powers under Section 95 of the Act. We expressed our agreement with the said view taken by the learned Single Judge in the said Judgment and allowed the appeals.


12. It was really amazing that in these appeals the State Government did not raise a ground relying upon the Comprehensive Development Plan and the Judgment of this Court in Jayashree's case, -- State of Karnataka v. Jayashree, referred to above. As seen earlier, the Division Bench of this Court which admitted these appeals after reading the Circular dated 29-7-1986 produced later by the respondents, observed that the Court was extremely sorry to note that the Court was misled by the appellants to believe that the green belt existed and getting the appeals admitted, though it did not exist. Now on seeing the CDP approved by the Government as early as on 12-10-1984 and published on 18-10-1984, we are extremely sorry to note that the Court was misled to believe that green belt did not exist, which resulted in our dictating an order dismissing these appeals though the green belt did exist and the appellants did not even urge a ground relying on the CDP even at the time of arguing these appeals, which would have constituted a strong ground for allowing the appeals and by not doing so ensured their defeat to the detriment of public interest. Even after we dictated the order, the appellants did not inform us about the existence of green belt for Bangalore City Planning area under the CDP. But on our coming to know on 16-3-1987 of the existence of the CDP covering the area in question and the judgment of the learned Judge delivered in Jayashree's case, -- State of Karnataka v. Jayashree as public interest would suffer irretrievably by our Judgment and it would be in plain contravention of the provisions of the Planning Act and the Judgment of the Supreme Court in P.K. Srinivasan -v.- State of Karnataka, CA Nos. 278(sic)6 and 2781 of 1982 dated 19th Jan 1982 in which the Supreme Court, confirming the Judgment of this Court held that the Regulations framed under the Planning Act were binding and had over-riding effect on all other laws and their contravention cannot be permitted by the authorities of Bangalore Corporation, we suo motu directed that these appeals be posted for 'For being spoken to' for further hearing on 24-3-1987, that is, yesterday. We invited the attention of the Learned Counsel for the respondents as also the Government Advocate to the Judgment in Jayashree's case, -- State of Karnataka v. Jayashree as also the circumstances under which the matter was being directed to be posted for 'For being spoken to' and asked them to examine the matter and make their submissions in the light of the CDP having come into existence for Bangalore Planning Area.


13. Accordingly, the matter was posted and we have heard the Learned Counsel. The relevant statutory Notifications pursuant to which the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Area was demarcated and the CDP was published are :
(1) On 13th March 1984, a Notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4A of the Planning Act was published. It reads :
"Notification No. HUD 496 TTP 83 Bangalore, dated 13th March 1984. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 4A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 11 of 1963) the Government of Karnataka hereby declares that w.e f. 15-3-1984 the area comprising peripheral villages around Bangalore as indicated in Schedule I to be a Local Planning Area for purposes of the said Act which shall be called by the name of 'Planning Area for the environs of Bangalore and the limits of the said planning area shall be as indicated in Schedule-II."
According to the above notification, a planning area called 'the environs of Bangalore was brought into existence. Schedule (1) to the said notification furnishes the list of as many as 324 villages in different Hoblis around the City of Bangalore which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bangalore North, Magadi, Nelamangala and Hosakote Taluks. The boundaries of that planning area were set out in detail in schedule (2) and at the end there was the following note :
"Note : This excludes the Bangalore City Local Planning Area declared in Government Notification PLN 42 MNP 65(S.O. 3446) dated 1st November 1965."
In the list of the villages, we found Guni Agrahara (wrongly printed as Gini Agrahara) of Hesaraghatta Hobli in which the lands of the respondents are situate as one of the villages included in the Local Planning Area, environs of Bangalore.
(2) Thereafter, on 6th April 1984 there was another notification issued under Section 4A of the Planning Act. It reads :

"HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT

Notification No. HUD 496 TTP 83(1) Bangalore, dated : 6th April 1984.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(3) of Section 4A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1960 Karnataka Act 11 of 1963) the Government of Karnataka hereby amalgamate the 'Local Planning Area of Bangalore' declared in Notification No. PLM 42 MNP 65 dated 1st November, 1965 and the Local Planning Area declared for the environs of Bangalore in Notification of Even No. dated 13-3-1964 The amalgamated Local Planning Area shall be called by the name of Bangalore City Planning Area' w.e.f. 1st April 1984. The names of villages towns included in the amalgamated Local Planning Area are as indicated in Schedule I and the limits of the said Planning Area shall be as indicated in Schedule II annexed in notification Nos. dated 1st November 1965 and 13th March 1984."

The effect of the above notification is, the Bangalore City Planning Area as declared earlier and the Planning Area of environs of Bangalore declared in the Notification dated 13th March 1984 were amalgamated to form the Bangalore City Planning Area. This notification has been issued under the powers vested in the Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Planning Act which empowers the Government to amalgamate more than one planning area into one.
(3) After issuing the above declaration, a C.D.P. was approved by the Government on 12-10-1984 for the Bangalore City Planning Area as enlarged by Notification dated 6th April 1984. The said notification was published on 18-10-1984 in the Official Gazette. It reads :


"OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BLOCK XII. KUMARAPARK WEST EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 020
Notification dated : 12th October 1984
Sub : Approval of C.D.P. for Bangalore Metropolitan Area.
No. BDA/TPM/648/84-85. Government in their Notification 1 No. HUD. 3 TTP 83 dated 12-10-1984 have approved under Section 22(3) of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, the CDP of Bangalore Metropolitan Area prepared by the Bangalore Development Authority. As required under Section 22(4) of the Act and Rule 44 of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, this notification is published for information of the public and institutions concerned.

The Plans, Regulations and the report of the C.D.P. is available for inspection by the public in the Planning Section of the Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore. From the date of this notification, the provisions of the CDP shall have effect and shall govern all changes in the land use and development in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The provisions of the Outline Development Plan and regulations approved by Government in Order No. HMA 32 MNP 68 dated 22-5-1972 under Section 13 shall be deemed to be superseded, as provided
in Section 23 of the Act.
Sd/-- Commissioner."


14. In the order made in Jayashree's case, -- State of Karnataka v. Jayashree at paragraph 10 of the Report it is said that the C.D.P. was approved and published in the order dated 20th August 1984. But it is a mistake. The C.D.P. was approved by the aforesaid Notification.


15. Under the C.D.P. the village, Guni Agrahara falls within the area earmarked as 'green belt'. A copy of the C.D.P. was made available to us by one of the Learned Counsel appearing in a connected case. The relevant Zoning Rule in the CDP governing the Green Belt reads :

"1.2.6 Agricultural Zone (Green Belt) 
1.2.6.1. Uses that are permitted : Horticulture, farm houses and their accessory building and uses not exceeding 200 Sq.m. of plinth area within the plot area limitation of minimum 1.2 hectares plot, uses specifically shown as stated in the land use plan like urban village, brick kilns and removal of clay upto 2.4 m depth beyond a distance of 1.5 k.m. from the development plan limits, gardens, orchards, nurseries, land under stable crops, grazing pastures and forest lands, marshy land, barren land, land under water.

1.2.6.2 Uses permissible under special circumstances : Parks and other public and semi-public recreational use not conducted for profit."
Relevant part of Section 14 which applies to the Outline Development plan prepared under the Act and Section 24 which applies Section 14 to the CDP read :

"14. ENFORCEMENT OF THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE REGULATIONS : (1) On and from the date on which a declaration of intention to prepare an outline is published under Sub-section (1) of Section 10, every land use, every change in land-use and every development in the area covered by the plan shall conform to the provisions of this Act, the Outline Development Plan and the regulations, as finally approved by the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 13.
(2) No such change in land use or development as is refer: red to in Sub-section (1) shall be made except with the written permission of the Planning Authority which shall be contained in a commencement certificate granted by the Planning authority in the form prescribed.

"24. ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN : (1) The provisions of Section 14, Section 15 and Section 16 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the enforcement of the Comprehensive Development plan."
Section 76M of the Act reads :

"76M. EFFECT OF OTHER LAWS : (1) Save as provided in the Act, the provisions of this Act and the rules regulations and bye-laws made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any such other law.
a) When permission for development in respect of any land has been obtained under this act, such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained.
b) when permission for such development has not been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has been obtained."
In view of these provisions, the respondents or any other person in a position like the respondents could apply for change of use of any land lying within the area of the CDP only to the Planning Authority, that is, the Bangalore Development Authority and not to the Deputy Commissioner. Even so, after more than one and half years after the CDP came into force the Government had issued directions to all the Deputy Commissioners including the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, not to reject the permission for conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural use assuming the existence of green belt. There is no mention to the CDP in the Government Circular dated 29-7-1986 which was sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore City and rural districts. It is difficult to comprehend as to why and how in the Circular dated 29-7-1986 issued long after the promulgation of the CDP and the Judgment of this Court in JAYASHREE'S case, -- State of Karnataka v. Jayashree, decided in August 1985, reference to the existence of Green Belt for Bangalore City under the CDP was omitted and has not even been referred to in the three subsequent Circulars keeping the Circular dated 29-7-1986 in abeyance.


16. In view of the CDP and Sections 14 24 and 76M of the Planning Act, on and after 18-10-1984 the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, had no power or authority to deal with any application for change of use of land lying within the area of the CDP and that power vested with the Planning Authority. Therefore, the appeals have to be allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal has to be set aside, though on grounds not urged or raised by the appellants in these appeals, as it goes to the root of the matter, for, when transgression of law affecting public interest comes to the notice of this Court it is the duty of this Court to give effect to the law and not for its transgression, on the ground that the appellants did not choose to raise it.


17. The Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the CDP in so far it relates to the additional area which is brought, within the Bangalore City Planning Area, was not in accordance with law on the ground that the prescribed procedure had not been followed. There is no dispute that Sub-section (3) of Section 4A empowers the Government to amalgamate more than one planning area into one planning area. This is what was done by Notification dated 6th April 1984. Sub-section (4) of Section 19 enables the preparation of a CDP for amalgamated planning area. Accordingly, a CDP has been prepared and approved for the amalgamated Bangalore City planning area. If, according to the respondents, there are grounds to challenge the validity of the CDP, they are at liberty to do so by filing a separate Writ Petition, but they cannot be permitted to raise such a contention in this proceedings, for, unless the validity is challenged by making the Planning Authority also a party and a prayer is made for striking down the CDP, the validity of CDP cannot be raised or considered.


18. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted an alternative argument for sustaining the order of the Tribunal. He submitted that as the application was made on 29-8-1983 and as under Sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner was required to pass orders on the said application within four months, the law which prevailed within those four months alone governs his application and the respondents had a vested right to secure permission for conversion. He also relied on Article 400A of the Constitution and submitted that the respondents had the right to enjoy their property as they pleased in accordance with law which was in force within a period of four months from the date on which the application was made. The right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property, which was originally a fundamental right under Clause (f) of Article 19 has been omitted by the Constitution 44th Amendment. The right incorporated under Article 400A thereafter is that 'no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law'. It is difficult to appreciate how the respondents can be said to have been deprived of their property by the provisions of the CDP. The CDP imposes restriction regarding the use of property and Section 14 of the Planning Act read with Section 24 provides that for every charge of use of land within the planning area, written permission of the Planning Authority is necessary and even if permission had been obtained under any other law, to act according to such permission would not be lawful. Therefore, on and after the date on which the CDP came into force, the Deputy Commissioner stood divested of his power under Section 95 of the Land Revenue Act to deal with the application of the respondents, though presented earlier.


19. Further, combined effect of Clauses(a) and (b) of Subsection (2) of Section 76M of the Act is, any change of land use with the permission of the Planning Authority alone is lawful. In other words, change of use of land lying within the planning area can be effected only with the permission obtained from the Planning Authority and acting on the permission rescued from the Deputy Commissioner would no longer be lawful and the Planning Authority is empowered to prevent any person acting on the basis of the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Land. Revenue Act. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the law which was in force earlier governs the application or that Article 400A of the Constitution is violated.


20. Before concluding, we consider it appropriate to observe that the gravity and magnitude of subversion of law disclosed in this case are such as would call for an immediate inquiry and in particular in respect of the following matters :

(i) Why in issuing the directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore regarding grant of permission for conversion of agricultural lands lying in the Green Belt area for non-agricultural use and in the Circular dated 29-7-1986 issued by the Government informing the Deputy Commissioners of all the districts including those of Bangalore Urban and Rural Districts, the existence of Green Belt for Bangalore City Planning Area under the CDP was ignored and who were all responsible for its issue when the CDP which specified the Green Belt for Bangalore City Planning Area had been approved by the Government itself on 12-10-1984 and was published in the Official Gazette on 18-10-1984 and the Government had itself relied on it before this Court in the case of Jayashree, -- State of Karnataka v. Jayashree decided on 25-8-1985 and its plea had been upheld, and what action should be taken in the matter ?

ii) How many permissions have been granted in violation of the CDP and what action should be taken to annul such permissions given in contravention of the CDP ?

iii) Why a ground relying on the CDP was not taken in these cases before the Tribunal, before the Learned Judge and in these appeals ?

21. In the result, we recall the order dictated by us on 9-3-1987 dismissing these appeals and make the following order :
i) The writ appeals are allowed.
ii) In reversal of the order made by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 7214 and 7215 of 1986, we allow the Writ Petitions and quash the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, impugned in the Writ Petitions.





TOWN PLANNING CIRCULAR

Town Planning Circular 2006

GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION REGARDING ROAD WIDTH

Road Dimension Circular of 1998

2005 GAZETTE NOTIFICATION OF RULES GOVERNING CONVERSIONS

2005 Karnataka Govt Conversion Rules

REVENUE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DOCUMENT OF TITLE

AIR 2008 SC 901 ,   GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR &; ORS VS  NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND &; ORS :- A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under s.110 of the Evidence Act.

Coparcenary is a creature of Hindu law and cannot be ,created

In a case of BHAGWAN DAYAL Vs. MST. REOTI DEVI AIR 1962 SC 287 it is observed as follows: “Coparcenary is a creature of Hindu law and cannot be ,created by agreement of parties except in the case of reunion. It is a corporate body or a family unit. The law also recognizes a branch of the family as a subordinate corporate body. The said family unit, whether the larger one or the subordinate one, can acquire, hold and dispose of family property subject to the limitations laid down by law. Ordinarily, the manager, or by consent, express or implied, of the members of the family, any other member or members can carry on business or acquire property, subject to the limitations laid down by the said law, for or, on behalf of the family. Such business or property would be the business or property, of the, family. The identity of the members of the, family is not completely last in the family. One or more - members of :that family can start a business or acquire property without the aid of the joint family Property, but such business or acquisition would his or their acquisition. The business so started or property so acquired can be thrown into the common stock or blended with the joint family property in which case the said property becomes the estate of the joint family. But he or they need not do so, in which case the said property would be his or their self- acquisition, and succession to such property would be governed not by' the law of joint family but only by the law of inheritance. In such a case if a property was jointly acquired by them, it would not be governed by the law of joint family ; for Hindu law does not recognize some of the members of a joint family belonging to different branches, or even to a single branch, as a corporate unit.. Therefore, the rights inter se. between the. members who have acquired the said property would be subject to the terms of the agreement where under it was acquired.”

WHEN THERE IS PARTITION DISPUTE REVENUE RECORDS SHALL NOT BE CHANGED SAYS KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Karnataka Government Secretariat,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore,
Circular Number No. RD 79 MRR 2002                                                                           Dated: 20th February 2003.

S l No 1860/Section RTC

Subject Reg- Co-parceners
                                                                                               
CIRCULAR
There is some confusion in recording the name of the purchaser in the Mutation Register on the sale of undivided interest of one of the Co-parceners of the land. Some Revenue Inspectors are insisting upon the landholder to first get the land partitioned and then approach for mutation; whereas some Revenue Inspectors are effecting mutations by recording the name of the purchaser and even giving separate rights to the purchaser by effecting phodi in respect of the land purchased by him.

In a case reported in ILR 1999 KAR 1484 the Hon'ble High Court has held as follows:
"No doubt, as pointed by Shri Adhyapak the respondent 3 and 4 acquire the undivided interest of the 2nd respondent in respect of the land bearing sy.no.772/2. It is well settled that so long as the partition of the family properties does not take place, what the respondents 3 and 4 acquire in the land in question is only the undivided interest of the 2nd respondent. Under these circumstances, it was not permissible for the Tahsildar to enter the name of respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the land in question on the basis of the sale deed – Annexure A and give separate sub-numbers as has been done in Annexure-E. If the respondents 3 and 4 have acquired right, title and interest of the 2nd respondent in respect of the land in question, the remedy open to the respondents 3 and 4 is to seek partition of the family properties. Till that is not done, it is not permissible for the Revenue Authorities to enter the name of the purchaser in respect of the joint family properties".

It, therefore, implies that it is not correct for the Revenue Department to enter the name of purchaser in such cases where one of the Co-parceners sells his undivided interest.
The purchaser will have to seek for partition of the family properties. Till it is done, revenue authorities should not enter name of the purchaser in respect of joint family properties in the mutation register.

However, if all the joint holders agree to sell a portion of their joint property to a purchaser then the authorities can certainly enter the name of the purchaser in respect of the extent purchased by him. In such cases the remaining property continued to be joint in the name of the joint owners.

Further, if one of the Co-parceners sells his undivided interest with the consent of all the other joint owners then his name can be removed and the name of the purchaser can be inserted. To illustrate these points following examples are given:

Let us presume there are 3 joint owners holding 6 acres of land. If all of them jointly sell one acre of land to D then it is permissible for the revenue authorities to mutate one acre of land in favour of D. Then RTC would be as follows:

A, B, C – 5 acres (jointly owned) D – 1 acre

In the second case, if C sells away his portion of land, which, for the sake of argument, say one and half acre (as agreed by all 3 owners) then RTC would look as follows: A, B – 4.20 acres (jointly owned) D – 1.20 acre

In both these cases it may noted that the consent of the other joint owners either at the time of executing sale deed or at the time of effecting mutation is necessary.


Above guidelines be kept in mind by all the concerned.
This Circular is also available at the Revenue Department Internet site
http://www.revdept.kar.nic.in.
(RAJEEV CHAWLA)
Additional Secretary to Government
Revenue Department (Land Reforms)
To,
All Deputy Commissioners.
Foot Notes
For any suggestions / clarifications, please send mail to 
Mr. Rajeev Chawla (Additional Secretary)

CASE LAW ON LAND LAWS

KARNATAKA LAND LAWS