High Court Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka By Secy vs The Chairman Land Tribunal … on 18 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Secy vs The Chairman Land Tribunal … on 18 March, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
!'~.)

This Writ Peiiiion having been rasewed for Orders on 
2969, the Ceurt made the faliowfing;  4' ,  L-  V "

(SEWER

Petition is by the State challengingizfihe {>r{i e:*  

dated 25.9.1932 in LRY 226 7445 an :he4'a_e§1a:a1ion.vii1¢;1':b§,v :t§; ;2"'* 

rctspondent holding that 2" responderz§""i§r,.V:.t.Vio!d;ing iéI;d  éiicegg of 119.95

acres 01' land.

2"' respondent,fi1cd  '£31'-'n_1'  1{.ié;:iariz1g his holding

of agiculnlrai is 1420 acres 99
cents. Accozjaatgggii.a§%:j:%fi§'”‘pe:§ii}}§:c;{,f:he: ggid’ Form 11 filed by the 2″‘
ffiSp0nd£§%1¥%l#€i 27 cents of land which was
in pos3es;iiog% 19$ _:’ifY:s’:””tenants. The Land Tribunal without

iloléing inqu§:’3} ‘1;;t1§iei* iii»: Land Reforms Act passed an order an

V. _,25.9;..§’93E”inciu§3ing tlgéfiaid’ Varaa of $6.27 acxes of Land which according

fléérxz. s§ias i1:4f3.<*g§s¢$sien of the tenants and 716 asres. 7?' cents which is

aiiega to _be' ?aV_ pimmtion area and fnrtimr held thai 2*' respondent is

.__ent'itled~t§fi' E016 29 units of D (31383 iand. The toial of ail these {ands is

A » T: ages 4 :2-exits whiah is exciudad from the hoiding vi' 2"' respcmxient.

Further, it is submitted when me: atppiicatien flied by the aileged

tenant at the reievant pain: 9:" time was aim perzding cunaiéeration, Farm
/

1; is filed by the 2"' respcndeni before the Land Tribunal. T155:

Tribunal ought to have clubbed both Form 7 filed by the so Cfijfifiedv A "

zmci also the Form. I} filed by the 2"'! respondentiandégugiitfiiliiléhéiicé

a cammon order while disposing of the matter.

According to the petitioner, the -a_l1ege<i'Wtv;ri¥a:1cy :i.s"'}.i'VVAa::c;liusi_i;–'e Vi

tenancy and the said claim is only to get {if the
2"" respondent. It is their CaS$V$i3'.i'tiITi.Tf1€ of lliléiixcres 77
cents is not a plantation grea. may on the
basis (if survey 2: ibieen given in the
holding Cif the a spot inspection, The
Tribmal ha§=;l'<i::ii1i1e' .§ci:c}u§i6fi' tliat the applicant is hokiing
excess aggriciiltufal lami acres 95 cents. It is also stated

that £116 allegediiia'-:$i11;;a;iéy__ by the tenants is a collusive

"€i*.;1a1:c§.{;' Ti is fiiéd«in___£;c+i1usion with the 2" respondent" which is

iipgoifiiiiicd iitzf Kamataka Land Reforms Act. The claim of tenancy

is g7e"ti?e'1;.%a1¢:i".:.ii fiom the total holding of the 2*" respondent.

"V:l1c.';iiétiii0ner State has scmght for a mi: of certiorzaii to

M ii :33 oriiér dated 25.9.1982 passed by the respondent Land Tribunal

.'_a1«t__ aifiuuiéiiiifé A.

” _ Heard flue counsel regresaniing the garties.

:_:f’é§pe:>nden§_j sgwic tbs; the Land Reforms Act

vi’ii*)fIiiin3’EA6″‘{}€1a§f 0f years in fiiing this Writ petition and the State

” Vvegyj weiivzfiare of the proceedings and erder passed by the Land
.3’$j’A.’i£ is a party to the proceedings and the order passed by the

h 1 has bwen acmepted by {he gavemment amt: if has taken aver
A»;7,;§£1{?;2;erssi0n ef the suzpius $396.. The surveys? has visited the spot ané

V mnducted the survey which dfisclases {hat $76 acres and 2′? acres has been

it is the suhrnission of the Gsvemmeni Pleads: that .
inspecting the smt, the Tribunai has simpiy accepted the contentifiéin is
respondent deciaring {hat 716 acres 7′? cents as plaziiation .:§11;%$Vi’i:s’_’_
is oniy 119 acres 95 cents and even the report 7 A
Inspector has been blindiy accepted statigi;-;5-;, tia3;§ ii pL*vs$e9:b:§!i§iri’:A._:o’§’–V.ihe-‘*3
tenants and tenancy has been creatfzd to 420
{“312 the report submitted by thev of iané is
plantatinn area, is with a13._ulteriqr.Vz::<;.§t_ijze .i ;:tVr_i;'r;:'i;i.«iiv;;%'::;é$;i5ndents, it is
accordingly subrnitt§:i3._.:v to have been
conducted by axe fiuge extent of land as
plantation of S104 of the Lani}
Reforms Aat it is "£11: impugned order is passed

igmring {ha fact fl;§f'i31_ianc§.'–is éiv.ciii"li;sive tenancy at file imtancfi of the

:9'-:*:1_ cé:':1§fa.5 for the respnndent submitted that there is

M

granted in favour of the tenants and an extent of 716 acres and 1?'? 5

3 plantatinn area as such, as, per S104 cf the Land Ref-arms Act, L' "

area does not come within that ceiling Limit.

In the Light of the arguments advaficcfi, tIr1e

censideraiion is — wiwther the impugned gassed’
Tribunal halding that there is excé;Aa§ ‘§;1nd.’_fo 119 acres 95

cents is justified and, whether the impugi3.¢d jin’iL61’f6I’6flG6.

Of course there deigjgf in pirsfexfitig th¢A§vi”ij§ It is noticed,
on behalf of the a affigmatiim letter
tn the efl°<:ct ihai' 'amasv 99 cents and also
having noticed t§_1at and also Form 3' is filed
sacking for deciaréfiarfééand; abeut 476 acm 27 aeres has
'fiat: Remaining 'E16 acms 77 cents is in

péss§s§£o3n.. 91% as per the report of the Surveyor and also

expr&§sit:g'T.–.t§;aiV" area cmlid have been exempied from the

'.VVa';5p1ica£ie1£'.i2f Refmms ska! as per S.}.Ci4i, the Land Tribxznai has

' A.e::§znp¥£0f.a to ihe extent of '.116 acres and "I7 cents and {mi}?

133:3 over the iand to the extent of 319 acres 95 cents stating

"it.iS72€3.'§i}€5s land as per 867(1) am} {2} of the Land Reforms 53:3": after

'*« Agvifig sufiicieni opportunity fitmugh the Tahsiidar.

Of marge % contendad by the Gevemment Pleadsm.' "

Tribunal, having regard to the nature 9f the extent 9f the 1:§Vn_d”‘a::§ he}_d».5y

the respendent company ought to have made a iitsp§ction.;te. T;§SL~e;tair1VV«’

the basis of the report published as to what £9. t21c’:u m__;t€::’1*V£_A.{):f” lafitjfigztualiy A ‘ –~ ‘

possession 0f the mmpany as plantatiofi grid to
whether xealiy there were tenants :’if§..VOCCu133iib%é%i_:t9’fi1’3_ .exi§1%f ‘of-*1?ib’§ acres
27 cents and 3339 eught to have has been
drawn properly in fhisvragard’. 5 Tfibunai decided
the matter forfeiti1}s_;*’3§’i’3_ 95 Vito the govemxnant
without ascerft2_:i;3§;:1_g<§_x:'::ii inspection whether
there is planigfion -s;1:;h:pex'Inissi{)n was aecerded for
raiaing p1antati§$n.§f£:p, recimsideration at the: hands

af the Tdbunéi fe:V_VbVeiter 'éppreciatéon and disposal of the case in

'asé ordar{é'e }a§i.g__ta mnsider whether aciually them are tenants to the

extnez'-2tVV£3f :i2 .cent3 and whether actuaiiy the csmpany was

*1~:e}dingA ggkntafiun to the extent of 76? acres 7? cents and whether any

_. 1,e:u__i;i';. penniséigzjtwas obtained 9:' was requireé to raise the platntatian cmp

'anfi such area as piantatien area for axemptitm under 3.104 of

K Lafzd Refmms Act.

Further, the order forfeiting 1}? acres 95 cents E aireaéy effected,

shaii nest be dismrbed’ Thnugh there: is delay, having regard to the huge

JP

extent of land and me iilegaiify aliegfid, fer fine mason that filis ‘2 V
not perpetuate the illegality, pétition is ailowad. Matter is M
to the Tribunal for disp<}sa1 in aceardance: wi§h"'I'aw. kee5;;1ng. <';, , §j¢€§? ihba

observatians mafia above.