Per K.V. Narayana Raju, M.-These two appeals are from the same order dated 21-10-1981 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore in Case No. LND(S) SR. 42/78-79 cancelling the grants dated 15-5-1945 of 2 acres to each of the predecessors of the appellants out of Survey Number 26 of Kalenahalli Village, Shikaripur Taluk on the ground that they had violated the terms and conditions of the lease grants, (sic). We find from the record that bits of land had been given on lease to several persons under Grow More Food Scheme and that some of them did not comply with the terms of the lease. The Tahsildar reported in April 1945 that the leases in their favour may be cancelled and grants made to five other applicants of whom were Malianna, the predecessor of Naranappa, the appellant in Appeal No. 311/81 and Venkatarao, the predecessor of Nagendrappa the appellant in Appeal No. 310/81. The Tahsildar had obtained Guthige Muchalikas from all such proposed lessees in anticipation of sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, who passed orders on 15-5-1945. Fresh agreements do not appear to have been taken. The agreements already taken provided inter alia that the lease was for five years at the end of which the lessee should surrender the land; that however be had the option to ask for confirmation at the end of the lease period of five years on payment of the rent and the upset price.
2. It is admitted that none of those grantees under whom the present appellants claim obtained grants after fulfilling the terms of lease. However Malianna sold the land on 21-4-1955 to a certain Basavanappa and the latter in his turn sold the land on 4-3-1968 to Naranappa the appellant in Appeal No. 311/81. The other lessee Venkatarao sold the land on 2-4-1969 to Nagendrappa, the appellant in Apl. 310/81.
3. There were reports that the lessees had contravened the conditions of the lease by alienating the land during the period of lease (?), and therefore the alleged grants were liable to be cancelled. The Divisional Commissioner issued notices only to the first purchasers Basavanappa and Nagendrappa, and though there was evidence that Basavanappa sold the land to Naranappa, the appellant in Apl. 311/81, he was not notified before passing the impugned order.
4. In appeal 310/81 Nagendrappa who bought from Venkatarao on 2-4-69 has said that the original grantee improved the land, that he bought it for valuable consideration and also effected improvements; that there was no condition against alienation within the lease period of five years and consequently there was no case for cancellation of the grant. It is also asserted that the lessee-grantee had not violated any other terms.
5. In Apl. 311/81 the appellant Naranappa who was the second purchaser has raised similar contentions and also the one that the order has been passed without notice to him and without giving a hearing.
6. The learned counsel also raised the contention that Rule 43(G)(7) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1960 as amended in 1979 empowered the Divisional Commissioner to cancel only the grant of land and not a temporary lease. We are of the opinion that the learned Divisional Commissioner was not right in saying that there was violation of any conditions of the lease grant. It is doubtful whether a mere lease under the Grow More Food Scheme is a grant contemplated by Rule 43(G)(7) of the Land Revenue Rules of 1960.
7. What is more is, that in the cases before us there were only leases for a period of five years at the end of which the lessees had to surrender possession, and that however they had an option to obtain grant. In fact Rule 43(J) of the Land Revenue Rules, 1960 contemplates grant of land to the person to whom the land had been leased temporarily if the conditions of the lease had been complied with. This provision appears to lend support to the contention that grant of land is different from a mere lease of land. The expression "Lease grant" is not used anywhere in the Rules.
8. When there was no grant either in terms of the agreements of lease executed, or under Rule 43(J) of the Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, the Divisional Commissioner cannot predicate that there was in fact a grant, where there was no grant and much less conditions of grant.
9. When the lessees did not exercise their option to obtain grants, they ought to have surrendered the lands or the Revenue Officers ought to have taken steps for evicting them. It is no-body''s case that the lease was extended after the expiry of the period of five years from April or May 1945. Every one has gone on as if there was nothing to be done for taking possession or for obtaining confirmation of the land. We are satisfied that there were no conditions of lease which operated after the expiry of five years from the date of lease and that the officers below have committed a fundamental mistake in thinking that there was a violation of the condition of a grant or a lease-grant. The lessees and their successors ought to have been treated as trespassers and steps taken to evict them under S. 94 of the Land Revenue Act. In this view of the matter the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner is set aside. The Revenue Officers will be at liberty to take action under S. 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Appeals allowed.
