When Government land is unavailable, Rule 8(8) provides eligible ex-servicemen a residential-site alternative to agricultural land.

Vemanna G., an ex-serviceman, challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s 2020 rejection of his request for five acres of Government land.

During the writ proceedings, the Tahsildar’s memo stated that five acres in Survey No. 67 of Madigondanahalli Village had been proposed for grant to him. Relying on that submission, the Single Judge directed the authorities to complete the grant and consequential revenue entries within four months.

The State’s review petition was dismissed; it then appealed, contending that the land was unavailable and that amended Rule 8(8) instead provided for a residential site where agricultural land was unavailable. The State also formed sites and provisionally allotted Vemanna a 2,400-square-foot site under the amended provision. He declined the State’s offer to proceed with the site allotment. Meanwhile, he had filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Single Judge’s order.

1. Whether the Single Judge’s order directing the grant of five acres warranted interference in the writ appeal.

2. Whether the contempt petition survived consideration following the disposal of the writ appeal.

Rule 8(8) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules provides an alternative benefit for eligible soldiers and ex-servicemen when Government land is unavailable for grant: a free residential site in the native taluk, or, if unavailable there, in another taluk of the concerned district, subject to the Rule’s conditions. The Court treated the Rule as a binding statutory benefit that authorities must implement according to its terms.

Under the contempt jurisdiction invoked pursuant to Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution, contempt requires disobedience of a subsisting, enforceable order; the Court also stated that the record did not establish deliberate or wilful disobedience.

The Single Judge’s direction for five acres had rested on the Tahsildar’s memo and assurance. On appeal, the Court considered the amended Rule 8(8), the State’s provisional allotment of a 2,400-square-foot site, and its assurance that Vemanna’s claim to that site would be considered; Vemanna had declined the offer. In those circumstances, the Court held that the Single Judge’s order did not withstand scrutiny and set it aside.

Because that order was the foundation of the contempt petition, its setting aside meant that the petition no longer concerned a subsisting order; the Court also found no material establishing wilful disobedience.

The connected contempt petition was dismissed as no longer surviving for consideration.