IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD % « 5
DATED THIS THE 15*" DAY QE..S_EPT§EMB§i'i§ 2503 [ <
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. IUSTICEzAN'£s3§I'D %
WRIT PETITION (
BETWEEN:
1.
Shri.RamaS:€9 .
Age: »ye2§rs,_.Qcc; 25"-.»,gri<m,¥t11te, "
R/o "fia:nletjTjof'Ngj:_dil§uraii,
L3"a1:TI<2;{E;ag'kS%;kk1317;
§_)ist_: --Belgau;_1vi.< _ " " 'V
Sh'fi'.LMamt§' €3Aw.Beié'-_a:y 4H.arake,
_. Age: 44}/ears, ()"cc:"Agricu1ture,
~ Ric: Kenkaitivhamlet 0fNandikura1i_,
Tit}: Raibag 591317,
" -- D_is::: Béigazzm.
" SEO Beera Harake,
Aigé:«:i'7 years, Occ: Agriculture,
' "R/1:3 Kenkaiti hamiet of Nandikurali,
Ta}: Raibag 591317,
H D£st: Beigaum.
. . . Petitioners
"(By Shri.Sachén Sfiagadum, Advocate)
8,
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Bui1ding,
Bangalore.
2. Depaty Commissioner, '
Belgaum, *
Dist: Belgaum --- ()01V,..~~~-
3. The Tahshildax,
Raibag,
Tal: Rajbag.V%§~S9I.317, .
Dist:_.Beiga%§r;3_~, » V '
4.
Raibag,
Ta}: Raibag~.S9-1'317',"f'-~_ * e
Dist: Belgaufilr dd » t d'
5. The Viilgage Accountant
N-a_ndiv.K'ur1_l,V _____ .. «
"Tait 'flzlibag 591.317,
D-'i._$tt' Beig..é§m_;i... *
VA'{VI§3y"vSmt.Vid§tavathi Shettar, High Court Government
' Writ tietitiorz is filed under Articles 226 and 22? of
= ._ . Coréstitritionof India, garaying to quash the order dated
.'2{?[:4.2006 passed by respondent no.2 vide Annexure D and
V .aeeordi1rgiy set aside the mutations vide Armexure A and B and
8
This petition coming em for orders this day.,Wthte”
made the following:
0RDERe_
Heard the Counsel for the
State.
2. it is the the lands in
R.S.no.98! it ‘Q9 games and
R,S.eo.91/?}f;Zi;:§’-‘égifi’i;meee{;%iiig__ :%d¢:e3 guetas cf Naeadi
Kurli District are joint family
propenieg ef lands are said to be aiiotted to
the gfaiher of the ipeititieneis in terms of a decree in original suit
‘V ‘eieii’29éh;I«96i8«aed tlteufether of the petzitoners is said to have been
tiieiiends in question. The father of the petitieners
died great 2003 ieaving behind the petitioners as his iegal
it ~ hehfs. ‘The petiteners having approached the revenue authority
igupon the death eftheir father to get entries in their names in the
revenue reeerds, they got an eeciersement as per Annexures A
6′
and B by the fourth respondent. The same has been effected in
pursuance of the order passed by the third respondent in case
No.TNCfSR-87/31:’?/74 under Section 44 of the Kertteiteka
Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 4′
brevity). The said order, according: to-the i.si_jon’e ii
vvithoet jurisdiction and was passedi’«iniigross iiirioiativon
principles of natural justice. Theiipipetitionersi for ad’
certified copy of the said.._orderiiiei1dijptiie’-third respondent has
isseed an endorsement no such order in
the rec:ords._”
pp i()ne;_i_S}’iri.Ii?aviia}appa Raexeppa Naék who is never
Jeuvltivated the iaeds in question and never claimed
ii aitenetrtiofiithe lands in question, the petitioners submits,
aediiw.ho.neither filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights
ii nor”-.fi}eMd Form No.7A claiming grant of lands in question,
Isowever, the said person name is entered in the eultivators
coieme. Therefore, the entries in the record of rights in favour
5
of the said person were totally imaginary. Hence the order
passed by the third respondent heiding that their iands”—.were
tenanted and the same vested with the State
terms of Section 44 of the Act is clearly illegal. ..7iih3VVpetiti.p1:ers .,
had approached the fourth respondent. ihnith’
in turn, has held that the mutation We havsesgii ieffeci:ed:i”e.
according to Section 44 of the it is’ti1ei_IinndET1*ib:Inai,
which is the competenifianthoréitggi ii zidjudeiate upon the
question whether’-the land”ie:”f.*este§i__iini’the” Sizate Government
under;Secti{‘:cn dis1nissed.the revision petition. It is in
this baci:gijo’und’th:a?£3i:he pzgsmit petition is fiied.
“‘C.ofensei for the petitioners would seek to
I pieiceip a judgment of this Court in the ease of
Beefdppep Devakattz’ vs. Land Tribwzal, Bgjapur &
anthers,’ .l__I977{1) Kar.L.J. 252 wherein it is heid that the
i”ii.’Aen.dofsement in the record of rights would raise a presumption
favour of a person in whose name the §’6{:03’d of righizs is
maintained and the person claiming tenancy wouid…ha7i»fe._V_to
adduce evidence to raise a presumption in his favéiuti .
oniy upon such determination that the.ia:_}d cotiid ii ”
tenanted and that the matter conid
to the Land Tribunal. Appiying-vi,:t}}e»saaieieasorn ‘ffioiznsei V
for the petitioners wo1:idV_&’sub’::’z’i’t theiiahsenhe of the
record indicating that the tenanted, the
Tahasildar an order that
lands in Covemment in terms of
Section!’ veiaisiQeerisetvithout jurisdiction and the
further respondent whereby a View as
waétaken thatitheiizesting or otherwise of the land in question
» ‘the=23o3%ernment, is also without reference to the want of
jsi”i’sidicfion; Counsel would submit that even respondent
No}?-1 deserved that there was no appiication filed by any
i for grant of occupancy right. If this be so, the very
“application of Section 44 is without jurisdiction as it is only
lands which are tenanted that vested with the State Government
in the first instance.
5, Per contra, the Government Advoeateii:
submit that the question of vesting the lands is to K V’
be determined by the Tribune}-
rightiy opined that the question vesfingiwith i,
would have to he decided by There is no
error of jurisdiction enriiiy, by the fozirth
respondent’. ” not sufier any prejudice if
the Land the question as to whether the
landgwere tenéinted’ atiialliaiid whether it vests with the State
ii’G(iifernirie:it.”i,_._The jurisdiction, in gmy case, is with the Land
the third respondent has committed an error of
jiiriiédiction,’ the question will have to be adjudicated hy the
it i V Laird Tiihiinal. Hence, there is no ground.
8
6. On these rivai contentions, whether any
application in Form No.7 is made in respect of the the
petitioner, which was tenanted by one Ratnappa as
above which is a primary contentio_n..i.s_;;o Ioiiger’Aeétvaiii.’:Ij§»e ii
there is a finding that there were;
tenancy of the land, the qaestioii veiéiing’ 2.33:’-_ei”~–Seetion 44*”
does not arise. Hence; the ieire22znSteflee*”ithat there
were no applications for findings of the
respondent No.3’go_ijose=._ gF1.5f:{‘th’8Ii’;iii’fiI3.i__§i’%)iI]iO1’l of the third
respondeiit i’li:i’1′.”~3:i’Vi’I~vI;hE3iiii’..4′:ii1iI”1{_i:iifeéied State Government under
Seetioni”4_4″ {mite ivitfionit jurisdiction is bad in law.
Aeco;”dir1.gly:the allowed. The Annexuree A and B
‘V The respondents are directed to carry out
eaofreetiioiiisvyin ‘t¥:’e’.ireeords of right in favour ofthe petitioners.
Sd/-»
Iudge