The Karnataka High Court has emphasized the need for precision among those involved in the printing and publishing of statutes and statutory instruments. Failure to adhere to this standard could result in serious consequences, such as being held in contempt of court, charged with perjury, and other related offenses.

Additionally, offenders may face the penalty of being excluded from consideration for public tenders concerning the supply of their publications.

During the appeal filed by Fr. Valerian Fernandes, questioning the dismissal of his petition seeking a mandamus to grant the subject land by issuing Grant Certificate/Saguvali Chit, a division bench comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation.

During the hearing, the government advocate stated that the amount payable for the grant in question must adhere to the 2023 Amendment Rules, as the said amendment involves substitution.

She relied on Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 of KLJ Publications, 2019, 5th Edition which in footnote 1 on page 48 which states: “Substituted for the words “on payment of fifty per cent of the market value” by Notification No.RD 09 LGP 2015(P), dated 19-9-2015 and shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 9-6-2015”

Upon reviewing the provision, the court noted that the Notification does not specify that the said amendment is by way of 'substitution'. Additionally, the court remarked that without the intervention of the appellant's counsel, the Court could have been misled by the mistaken interpretation of KLJ Publications, leading to significant detriment to citizens.

Then it said, “It goes without saying that if for the 'mistake of law', none should suffer, none should suffer for the 'mistake of Law Publisher' too.”

Allowing the petition the court held that there was already a grant order which was affirmed in the appellant's appeal decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

It held that when there is a statutory Tribunal's order, relegating the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner for seeking a fresh grant was not justified.

Accordingly, it concluded, “A writ of mandamus issued to the second respondent to formalise 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.”

Appearance: Advocate Keshava Bhat A for Appellant.

AGA Niloufer Akbar for Respondents.

Case Title: Fr. Valerian Fernandes AND State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1561 OF 2023