Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 161 (KAR)

BADAKANA BIDMAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2007-03-08

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2007
ORDER Writ petitioner was an applicant before the Land Tribunal, Soraba, seeking for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the following lands.- Village Sy.No Extent Udri 218 2-03 329 2-37 620/3 1-21 625 2-32 204 16-30 2. After enquiry, while the Land Tribunal resolved to grant occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner, as the claim was not opposed by anyone, the Tribunal found technical difficulties in granting occupancy rights to an extent of 16 acres 13 guntas of land in Sy. No. 204, as according to the Tribunal, the land in Sy. No. 204 had already been surrendered in favour of the Government as excess land and had also been notified in the gazette dated 17-6-1976 and therefore the applicant's request for registration of occupancy rights in respect of this extent of land is to be rejected. 3. It is questioning this order the applicant-petitioner had preferred W.P. No. 19178 of 1983. This writ petition, in view of the change of law, had been transferred to the land reforms appellate authority and due to subsequent change, was brought back to this Court through a civil petition filed by the petitioner and is now renumbered as W.P. No. 25724 of 1993. 4. Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points out that the petitioner if is a tenant in respect of an extent of 16 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 204, undisputedly such rights cannot be defeated by anyone else much less the landlord by surrendering the land as excess land, as though the landlord has surrendered tenanted the land in favour of the Government. In this regard, learned Counsel points out to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and submits that the Tribunal at any rate could not have accepted this land to be excess land surrendered by the landlord, as the land was not even in the possession of the declarant-owner. 5. Sri Nadiga Shivanandappa, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, also submits that the legal position is such that a declarant holding excess land cannot surrender the encumbered lands and that equally applies to the tenanted land which is not part of his excess holding. 6. 5. Sri Nadiga Shivanandappa, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, also submits that the legal position is such that a declarant holding excess land cannot surrender the encumbered lands and that equally applies to the tenanted land which is not part of his excess holding. 6. The reason assigned by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for registration of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner on the face of it is not tenable. In the first instance the Tribunal accepted could not have such surrendering of excess lands, and that is not correct. 7. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has asserted that he has continued to be in possession of the land in question and is cultivating the land, it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order insofar as it rejected the claim of the petitioner to register him as an occupant to an extent of 16 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 204. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, impugned order is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari, insofar as it rejected the claim of the petitioner to an extent of 16 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 204, and the matter remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration of the application of the petitioner in Form 7 in accordance with law and to pass orders afresh. The Tribunal to bear in mind that the land of this nature could not have formed part of excess land held by a declarant which can be surrendered. 9. Rule made absolute.