Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 140 (KAR)

PRABHU v. LAND TRIBUNAL

2003-02-11

body2003
( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 27-12-2002 passed by the 1st respondent in File No. REV/lry/6/75-76. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he and the husband of the 2nd respondent viz. , Devappa are the joint tenants of land bearing Survey No. 239 measuring 29 acres 13 guntas situated at Madyal Village, Aland Taluk, Gulbarga District. They are cultivating the said land as tenants since 1955-56 to an extent of half each. The petitioner is cultivating eastern half portion i. e. , 14 acres 26 guntas and the remaining western half portion was being cultivated by late Devappa and after his death, by the 2nd respondent. Be that as it may. Without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner, late Devappa who is the husband of the 2nd respondent, filed Form No. 7 before the 1st respondent for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 13. 6. 1979, granted only half portion of land in favour of late Devappa. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, late Devappa filed Writ Petition No. 34538/1993 which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh enquiry. The further case of the petitioner is that in view of the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, he filed an application under Section 7-A before the competent authority for grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 14 acres 26 guntas (eastern portion) of Survey No. 239 and the same is pending consideration. After the remand, the matter was taken up by the 1st respondent and the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to participate in the enquiry of Form No. 7 filed by late Devappa. As the said application was rejected by the Land Tribunal, he filed Writ Petition No. 47232/2002. The said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous in view of the final order passed by the 1st respondent. The Land Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted occupancy rights in favour of 2nd respondent to an extent of 14 acres 27 guntas in Survey No. 239, by its order dated 27. 12. 2002. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. The Land Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted occupancy rights in favour of 2nd respondent to an extent of 14 acres 27 guntas in Survey No. 239, by its order dated 27. 12. 2002. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length of time and perused the impugned order carefully. ( 4 ) THE only grievance of the petitioner is that he is cultivating eastern half portion of land measuring 14 acres 26 guntas in Survey No. 239 situated at Madyal Village, Aland Taluk, Gulbarga District. He made an application before the Land Tribunal to come on record stating that he has already filed Form No. 7-A for grant of occupancy rights to the extent of land cultivated by him and the same is pending consideration. The said request was rejected by the Land Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even otherwise also, the impugned order is not at all sustainable on the ground that it is passed without conducting enquiry as provided under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rules. ( 5 ) FROM a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Land Tribunal has not at all conducted enquiry as provided under Rules 17 and 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Further, it is significant to note that the Land Tribunal has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 48-A (2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Section 48-A (2) reads as follows: on receipt of the application, the Tribunal shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in the village in which the land is situated calling upon the landlord and all other persons having an interest in the land to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. The Tribunal shall also issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, there is no notice as such issued to the petitioner. The Tribunal shall also issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, there is no notice as such issued to the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is entered in the Record of Rights for the agricultural years 1966-67 up to 2001-02. This material was very much available before the Tribunal. In spite of that, no notice has been issued to the petitioner. Further, it is to be noted that the application filed by the petitioner to come on record as an interested person in the land in question was rejected by the Land Tribunal. As per section 48-A (2), the petitioner is entitled for notice and he should be heard in the matter. This proposition is declared by this court in the case of CHANNIAH VS RAMIAH AND ORS. (1979 (1) Kar. L. J. 315) wherein it is held that: under Section 48-A (2) and (3) and Rule 19, the Tribunal is under an obligation not merely to issue notices to persons mentioned in the application filed under Section 48-A (1), but also to publish or cause to be published public notices in the village concerned and other places so as to afford an opportunity to persons who may claim to be interested in the land to make representations before the Tribunal. The law laid down by this Court in the case cited supra is directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In my considered view, the Land Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter as stated above, I do not find any justification to sustain the impugned order. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the 1st respondent Land Tribunal for reconsideration and the 1st respondent is directed to conduct enquiry strictly in accordance with Rules 17 and 19 of the Land Reforms Act read with Section 34 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Further, the 1st respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent as provided under Section 48-A (2) of the Land Reforms Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both parties. ( 9 ) WRIT petition stands disposed of. ( 10 ) THE learned Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .