Holding

A final order granting waste land under Section 4, which has not been challenged, cannot be reopened merely because of a later suo motu cancellation, as the rights under Section 4A prevail.

Summary

The State of Karnataka appealed a High Court order that had directed the grant of 201 acres 34 guntas of waste land to the respondents, Krishnoji Reo and Anr., for grazing and afforestation under the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950. The land had earlier been allotted by the Assistant Commissioner, but the Deputy Commissioner later cancelled that order suo motu. The respondents filed a writ petition seeking the grant, which the High Court partially allowed. The Supreme Court held that the earlier order granting 100 acres for afforestation and 109.34 guntas for grazing had become final and could not be challenged by the Watandar, as the rights created under Section 4A of the Act prevailed. Consequently, the High Court’s orders were set aside and the matter remitted for disposal on merits, while confirming the part of the order favoring the State. The appeal was allowed with no costs.

Issues considered

The validity of challenging a final order granting waste land under Section 4 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950 after it has become final and unchallenged.
Whether the Deputy Commissioner's suo motu cancellation of the Assistant Commissioner’s order can be set aside.
The extent to which rights created under Section 4A of the Act affect the rights under Section 4.

Legislation cited

Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan (Abolition) Act, 1950s. 4, s. 4A

Subjects

land lawwaste landWatan abolitionsuo motu poweradministrative orderfinal orderproperty rightsappeal

Judgment

'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
been considered-Matter remitted to High Court for disposal of writ petition
E
in accordance with law.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5345 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.90 of the Karnataka High
F
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
j
Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad in his order dated June 17, 1964 as-
" ) .,

.. 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 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the
High Court with a request to dispose of the writ petition on merits in
accordance with law. The part of the order of the learned single Judge in
favour of the State which became final stands confirmed.

B The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

R.P. Appeals allowed.

.