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.
He renewed his claim through a representation in 2020, but the deputy commissioner rejected it again, prompting him to approach the High Court.
“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 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 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. 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.
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. 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.
