ORDER
1. The petitioners seem to be aggrieved by the notification dated 9-2-1994 (Annexure-L) issued by the respondent-Tahsildar in terms of Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) inviting applications for distribution of lands measuring 37 acres and 15 guntas in Survey No. 145 of Kulavalli village, Bylahongal taluk, Belgaum district.
2. According to the petitioners their applications filed in Form 7 claiming occupancy under Section 48-A of the Act, were rejected by the Land Tribunal in respect of these very lands by order dated 31-3-1982 (Annexure-G) in No. KLR/TRB/140-265+502 on the ground of notification dated 25-4-1955 issued under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 but now those lands are made available for agriculture to other intending applicants.
3. If appears that Kulavalli village in Bylahongal taluk including five hamlets i.e., Machi, Didalkop, Ningapur, Sagar and Gangyanatti was an inam village granted to one Linganagowda bin Iranagowda of Khodanpur. This inam was extinguished under the provisions of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, which came into force on 1-8-1953. Subsequently partition appeared to have taken place in the family of inamdars which need not be discussed in detail here. In respect of the said lands which as per the report of Tahsildar at Annexure-H comprises 9,978.34 acres out of which 492.17 acres was cultivable land. It is a matter of record that in respect of the said lands the Government of Bombay had issued a notification on 25-4-1955 under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, inter alia prohibiting/regulating the said lands by directing that no portion of the lands can be cultivated either by digging or ploughing without the express permission of the Divisional Forest Officer. There was also prohibition of firing or clearing of vegetation over the land. A Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Appeal No. 1729 of 1993 disposed off on 17-3-1988 (Annexure-N) on examination of
the scope of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the impugned notification issued thereunder, had held that the mere issuance of the notification will not amount to vesting of the land in the Government or transfer of ownership but it will have only regulatory or prohibitory effect in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with the notification issued by the State Government.
4. Coming to the facts of the case as made out by the petitioners they claim to he in possession and enjoyment of 37 acres 15 guntas of land in Survey No. 145 of Kulavalli village, Bylahongal taluk, which forms part and parcel of the forest notification in question. According to them they are in possession and enjoyment of the land since 1955 and also some “Hakku Patras” were given by the erstwhile owner in favour of the father-in-law of the second petitioner in the year 1957 through whom the lands reached the hands of the petitioners. Basing their rights on the said “Hakku Patras” they filed applications in Form 7 prescribed under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question. But the same was rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 31-3-1982 (Annexure-G).
5. It cannot be seriously disputed that for claiming occupancy rights in terms of Section 45 of the Act, the applicant has to inter alia show that he was a tenant over the land. The word “tenant” has been defined under clause (34) of Section 2 of the Act to inter alia mean a person who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord. It cannot be disputed that a lease can come into existence only if there be an enforceable agreement between the landlord and any other person claiming to be a tenant. But as provided under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, an agreement which is against law is void and unenforceable. Therefore even if the petitioners had entered into any agreement with the land owners for digging or ploughing the lands without any express permission from the Divisional Forest Officer, the same being against the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act and the notification issued thereunder, was unenforceable and the petitioner cannot lay any claim on the basis of such a void contract.
6. In the present case it is not the case of the petitioners that they had acquired any lease hold right to cultivate the lands in question with an express permission of the Divisional Forest Officer. Therefore in law there was no tenancy in favour of these petitioners entitling them to claim any occupancy rights in terms of Section 45 of the Act.
7. So far as distribution of lands in terms of Section 77 is concerned, if the lands in fact were agricultural in nature or were capable of being used for agricultural purposes then keeping in view the definition of the word “land” under clause (18) of Section 2 of the Act the provisions of the Act will very much apply to such lands. But then whether the lands can legally be distributed for agricultural purposes under Section 77 of the Act despite the prohibition contained in the notification issued under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, is a matter which needs to be attended to by the Revenue and Forest Authorities. Therefore it would
be advisable on the part of the Revenue Authorities to secure permission of the Divisional Forest Officers before the lands are made available to the landless or other eligible persons for cultivation so that such persons who in all likelihood will be illiterate and innocent may not be subjected to unnecessary harassment.
8. With the said observations I do not find any merit in the present writ petitions requiring any interference in the writ jurisdiction. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Let a carbon copy of this order be made available to Smt. V. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader for necessary action.