Case Note & Summary
The intra-court appeals arose from a common order of a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in two writ petitions. The appellant, Sri Adichunchanagiri Maha Samsthana Mutt, a religious trust, had been granted a site by the State Government under Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The private respondents, who held revenue entries in respect of the land, challenged the grant by filing writ petitions. The Single Judge allowed the petitions, set aside the grant, and directed refund of the allotment value to the Mutt. The Mutt appealed. The Division Bench heard arguments. The appellant contended that Rule 27 permitted preferential grant, that the writ petitioners lacked locus standi, that the documents supporting their claim were spurious as per a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, and that cited rulings were not properly considered. The respondents resisted, arguing that the Single Judge's order under Article 227 was not appealable and that the court's scope in intra-court appeal was restrictive. The Division Bench, broadly agreeing with the Single Judge, declined to interfere. It held that Rule 27 only empowers the Government to relax the rules, not to make a direct grant; the authority to grant vests in designated revenue officials. The Government Order dated 15.07.2019, which stated the grant was made after relaxing Rule 27A(2), was without competence as no formal relaxation order with reasons was passed. The court further held that locus standi in cases of illegal grant of state largesse is liberally construed, and the writ petitioners, having revenue entries, had standing. The FSL report was not conclusive and did not cover all documents; the revenue entries enjoyed a presumption of validity. The court also observed that multiple citations on the same point are unnecessary. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the Single Judge's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Land Laws - Grant of Government Land - Scope of Rule 27 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 - Rule 27 only empowers the State Government to relax the rigour of the rules, not to directly grant land; the authority to grant vests with revenue officials; the Government Order dated 15.07.2019 granting the land to the appellant-Mutt after relaxing Rule 27A(2) was without competence as no formal order of relaxation was passed and no reasons were recorded - Held that the Single Judge rightly set aside the grant (Paras 4a-4c) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Locus Standi in Illegal Grant of State Largesse - In matters concerning illegal grant of state largesse, the rule of locus standi is liberally construed to serve public interest; the writ petitioners, having revenue entries in their names, have locus standi to challenge the grant even if certain documents are found spurious; writ courts as custodians of public property cannot ignore apparent illegalities (Para 4d) C) Evidence Law - Forensic Science Laboratory Report - Reliability and Effect - FSL reports are not conclusive and cannot be acted upon as gospels of truth; the report in this case commented only on a few documents and did not establish fraud by the writ petitioners; their names appearing in revenue records carry a presumption of validity under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which was not rebutted (Para 4e) D) Constitutional Law - Article 141 of Constitution of India - Precedential Value of Supreme Court Decisions - Article 141 mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding; duplication of citations does not enhance precedential value; citing a plethora of decisions on the same point is undesirable and wastes judicial time (Para 4f)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2022 setting aside the grant of the subject site to the appellant-Mutt under Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and directing refund of allotment value suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference in intra-court appeal
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed both writ appeals, broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the Single Judge. The court held that Rule 27 only empowers relaxation of rules, not direct grant; the Government Order was without competence; locus standi is liberally construed in illegal grant matters; FSL report not conclusive; and no infirmity in the Single Judge's order.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Rule 27 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules
- 1969 only empowers relaxation of rules
- not direct grant
- power to grant vests in revenue officials
- government order without competence is void
- locus standi in illegal grant of state largesse is liberally construed
- FSL report not conclusive
- presumption of validity of revenue records under Section 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964
- Article 141 of Constitution of India only requires one declaration of law by Supreme Court
