2024 (8) TMI 195 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction to approach jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the Sub-Division, seeking redressal of grievance - substantive direction - amendment to Rule 23 as per Notification dated 08th March, 2023 - HELD THAT - Indulgence granted in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made by the counsel for the appellant. There is already the Grant Order and that the same is affirmed in appellant s appeal decided by the Appellate Tribunal. What has been left over for consideration at the hands of the authorities was only the question of the payment for the subject grant. When there is statutory Tribunal s order, relegating the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner for seeking a fresh grant is not justified. Awrit of mandamus issued to the second respondent to formalize the grant in favour of the appellant in terms of extant rules; the appellant is liable to pay the charges under the pre-amendment Rules of 2023. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of amendment to Rule 23 as per Notification dated 08th March, 2023.
2. Applicability of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, as amended in 2023.
3. Determination of payment for subject land grant.
4. Validity of directing petitioner to approach Assistant Commissioner for remedy.
5. Interpretation of statutory Tribunal's order regarding the grant.
6. Liability of appellant to pay charges under pre-amendment Rules of 2023.

Analysis:

1. The appeal questioned a Single Judge's order directing the petitioner to approach the Assistant Commissioner for redressal following an amendment to Rule 23. The appellant sought a writ of mandamus for the grant of subject land. The counsel argued that the appeal tribunal's order only determined the payable amount, not setting aside the lease. The High Court found fault with the judgment, granting indulgence and issuing a writ of mandamus for formalizing the grant.

2. The Additional Government Advocate contended that the appellant must make payments at revised rates under the 2023 amendment to the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The court noted the amendment's language and the Advocate's argument but emphasized that the amendment was not by substitution, correcting a mistaken version from KLJ Publications. The court held that the appellant should not suffer for the publisher's mistake and mandated the grant formalization under extant rules.

3. The issue of determining the payment for the subject land grant was crucial. The court clarified that the appellant was liable to pay charges under the pre-amendment Rules of 2023. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate legal publications to prevent citizens from suffering due to errors in legal texts.

4. The court addressed the validity of directing the petitioner to seek remedy from the Assistant Commissioner, noting that when a statutory tribunal's order affirms a grant, reapplying for the grant is not justified. The court agreed with the appellant's counsel that the appellant should not be relegated to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh grant when the grant order was already in place.

5. The judgment highlighted the significance of statutory tribunal orders and the need for authorities to consider such orders when deciding on matters related to grants and payments. The court's decision to issue a writ of mandamus for formalizing the grant underscored the importance of upholding legal procedures and honoring tribunal decisions.

6. The liability of the appellant to pay charges under the pre-amendment Rules of 2023 was a key aspect of the judgment. The court's decision to mandate the grant formalization under existing rules while clarifying the appellant's payment obligations demonstrated a comprehensive approach to resolving the issues raised in the appeal.

← Previous Next →