Rule Of Locus Standi Liberally Construed Where State Largesse Granted Illegally: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that in matters concerning illegal grant of State largess, the rule of locus standi is to be liberally construed and that would serve the public interest.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt challenging a single bench order wherein the court allowed the petition filed by private respondents and the grant of subject site in favour of the Mutt was set at naught with a direction for refund of allotment value to the appellant-Mutt.

One of the arguments raised by the Mutt was that the private respondents herein lacked locus standi to call in question the orders of grant. Disagreeing, the bench said,

“The writ petitioners are not strangers to the property; admittedly, they hold certain revenue records which contain entries in their names, even if certain documents which are held to be spurious by the Forensic Science Laboratory are excluded from consideration. Learned Single Judge having considered this aspect of the matter has found that the writ petitioners had the locus standi.”

It added, “An argument to the contrary would do a lot of dis-service to the public interest inasmuch as no person other than a rival claimant can challenge the grant and therefore, even the grants that are otherwise unsustainable would go with impunity if the rival claimant takes refuge in silence.”

It further said, “Writ courts in a sense, being the custodians of public properties cannot turn a Nelson's Eye to the apparent illegalities with which the grant of public property is fraught with. This idea, of course in a different terminology, has animated the view of learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners do have the locus & locum. There is no reason to upset such a considered finding.”

The Mutt had also contended that Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 provides for allotment of site by way of an exception to the normative scheme for the grant.

In this regard the bench noted that the Single Judge having examined all aspects of the matters, faltered the grant since the appellant was chosen for a preferential treatment unilaterally. "This constituted the first infirmity in the grant orders that were put in challenge in the subject writ petitions, warranting interference of a learned Single Judge in writ jurisdiction," High Court said.

It observed that Rule 27 of 1969 Rules provides for preferential grant as an exception to the normal procedure. However, Court said such a provision cannot be construed to authorise the Government to make the allotment on its own and it does not justify an action that favours one single entity when many other similarly circumstanced aspirants could have been in the fray.

“This provision apparently does not authorise the Government to make grant/allotment; it only provides for the relaxation of other Rules that would usually govern grant of the kind. The authority to grant is vested with the Revenue Officials by designation depending upon the extent of the land to be granted. Such officials are the jurisdictional Tahsildars, Assistant Commissioners & the Deputy Commissioners. The records do not disclose any order as contemplated under this Rule whereby the Government has relaxed the usual conditions. Added, such a relaxation has to be preceded by a prima facie opinion of the Government that it is just & reasonable to relax any of the provisions of these Rules,” Court said.

Court held that the subject GO specifically states that the Government has made the grant in question in terms of Rule 27 after relaxing the rigor of Rule 27A(2) of the 1969 Rules. "This is absolutely without competence. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the said grant cannot be faltered.”

The court also rejected the contention of the Mutt that rulings cited on behalf of the appellant-Mutt were not duly considered. It said “Nowadays, it is not uncommon to see a plethora of decisions being cited at the Bar and many of them will be reiterative of the law declared therein.

Referring to Article 141 of the Constitution which stipulates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India, Court said,

“Conspicuously, the term employed in this provision is “the law declared” and not “the law repeatedly declared”. Duplication of citations does not enhance the precedential value of a decision. Citing a plethora of decisions of the Apex Court or of one single High Court on the very same point of law, is not desirable since one ruling is enough. Otherwise, much of judicial time would be avoidably wasted to the detriment of other deserving causes that have been languishing in the court cupboards, for years, with no hope of sighting the Sun.”

Dismissing the appeal the court said, “It is not that the subject land has been allotted to the writ petitioners. Even now, it is open to the appellant-Mutt who happened to be the third respondent in the subject writ petitions to duly apply for the grant of said land."

Appearance: Senior Advocate Vivek Reddy for Advocate Subbd Reddy K N for Appellant.

Additional Government Advocate Shweta Krishnappa for R1 & R2.

Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta for Advocate Sammith S for R3 and R4.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 36

Case Title: Adichunchanagiri Maha Samstana Mutt AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2022 C/w WRIT APPEAL NO. 745 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order