The Karnataka high court has expressed “a deep sense of regret” while denying five acres of agricultural land to a landless ex-serviceman, saying it was constrained by amended rules that provide for a residential site when agricultural land is unavailable.
“We pass this order with a heavy heart, as the State does not have five acres of land to be granted to a soldier who has served the nation,” a bench of justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan said while setting aside a 2022 order of a single judge directing the authorities to grant the land to the ex-serviceman.
The bench said that it was conscious of the “services and sacrifices” rendered by petitioner Vemanna G, but was nevertheless constrained by the amended Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, which entitle an ex-serviceman to a residential site when agricultural land is unavailable.
“We are conscious of the services and sacrifices rendered by the petitioner to the nation. Nevertheless, in view of the amended rule, we are, with an unwilling mind and a deep sense of regret, constrained to pass the present order in accordance with the prevailing legal position,” lamented the bench in a recent order.
Vemanna, a landless ex-serviceman, had first applied in 2000 for five acres of government land in Magadi taluk of Ramanagara district under the quota for soldiers and ex-servicemen. His application was rejected by the district authorities in 2001 on the ground that no government land was then available for grant in the taluk.
{{/usCountry}}Vemanna, a landless ex-serviceman, had first applied in 2000 for five acres of government land in Magadi taluk of Ramanagara district under the quota for soldiers and ex-servicemen. His application was rejected by the district authorities in 2001 on the ground that no government land was then available for grant in the taluk.
{{/usCountry}}He renewed his claim through a representation in 2020, but the deputy commissioner rejected it again, prompting him to approach the High Court.
The State did not initially file its statement of objections before the single judge. During the proceedings, the tahsildar appeared before the court and, through the additional government advocate, submitted a memo stating that a proposal had been made to grant five acres to Vemanna in Magadi taluk, subject to approval by the higher authorities.
Relying on the memo and the assurance placed before it, the single judge on December 6, 2022, directed the authorities to ensure that the proposal was implemented within four months. The court also directed the State to issue the grant order and carry out the consequential mutation and revenue entries, while giving Vemanna liberty to seek exemplary costs from officials in case of non-compliance.
The State subsequently sought a review, contending that the land identified by the tahsildar had been proposed to be reserved by the forest department as alternate land for the Mekedatu dam project. The review petition was dismissed after the court noted that the tahsildar had personally appeared and the memo had been submitted on his instructions.
The State then challenged the orders before the division bench, contending that the undertaking given by the tahsildar was factually incorrect and could not be implemented.
It also pointed out that, in 2022, the State had amended sub-rule (8) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Under the amended provision, an ex-serviceman could not insist on five acres of agricultural land if such land was unavailable. Instead, the State was required to earmark a residential site measuring 2,400 square feet in a rural area or 1,200 square feet in an urban area.
The division bench accepted the State’s contention and held that Rule 8(8) itself provides an alternative where government agricultural land is unavailable. Under the provision, an eligible beneficiary is to be given a residential site free of cost in his native taluk or, if such a site is unavailable, in another taluk of the same district.
The bench noted that Vemanna had already been identified for allotment of a 2,400-square-foot residential site under the amended rule. The government advocate told the court that Vemanna stood first among 27 eligible soldiers and ex-servicemen identified for residential sites and assured the bench that his claim would be considered and the site granted in recognition of his service. Vemanna, however, declined the offer.
The bench also noted that the validity of Rule 8(8) had not been challenged and therefore the provision continued to bind the authorities as well as the court. It accordingly set aside the December 6, 2022, order of the single judge, while recording its regret at the circumstances that left it with no legal option to direct the State to provide the five acres sought by the ex-serviceman.