Karnataka High Court: While deliberating over the instant appeal questioning the single Judge Bench order concerning issuance for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to grant the subject land by issuing Grant Certificate, the Division Bench of N.V. Anjaria, CJ and Krishna S. Dixit, J.*, had to peruse Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, published by KLJ Publications, wherein the Court noticed certain discrepancies and therefore sternly warned law publishers in general that it is high time for them to be extra cautious while publishing statutes and statutory instruments otherwise they will risk being hauled up for contempt of Court and perjury, in addition to being blacklisted from public tenders for the supply of books of their publication. “If for the ‘mistake of law’, none should suffer, none should suffer for the ‘mistake of Law Publisher’ too”.
The instant intra-court appeal sought to set aside the decision of the single Judge Bench of the High Court wherein the petition seeking writ of mandamus for issuance of a Grant Certificate for grant of the subject land was disposed of directing the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance from jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of the Sub-Division.
The respondents opposed the appeal contending that the Single Judge had rightly relegated the appellant to the office of Assistant Commissioner, and he can work out his remedy there itself. The respondent also drew attention of the Court to the 2023 Amendment to the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, to contend that the appellant must make certain payment at the rates (now revised), if any relief is to be granted to him, since the said amendment is by way of substitution.
Taking note of the afore-stated contention, the Court perused Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, 2019, 5th Edition, KLJ Publications, wherein the foot note contained the details of the relevant Notification and the supposed amendment by substitution.
The Court noticed that Notification does not indicate that the amendment was by way of ‘substitution’. The Court pointed out that had not the counsel for the appellant intervened by pointing out the discrepancy in their contention, the Court would have been swayed away by the mistaken version of the by the afore-stated publishing house to the enormous detriment of citizens.
Thus, the Court issued stern warning to the law publishers in general to be extremely careful while publishing statutes otherwise they may invite contempt of court proceedings against themselves besides getting blacklisted from public tenders.
Taking note of the afore-stated circumstances, the Court issued the writ of mandamus to the respondent to formalise the grant in favour of the appellant.
[Valerian Fernandes v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 35, decided on 27-03-2024]
*Order by Justice Krishna S. Dixit
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant- Keshava Bhat A., Advocate
For respondents- Niloufer Akbar, AGA
