Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1234 (KAR)

Gurubasappa v. Land Tribunal, Basavakalyan

2015-11-09

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. Petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 7-7-2010 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. Petitioners are owners of agricultural lands. In that view, on Section 63 to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') being introduced, father of the first petitioner who originally was arrayed as second petitioner herein but died thereafter had filed declaration in Form 11. The Tribunal on taking note of the same has passed the order dated 7-7-2010. By the said order, the Tribunal has held that the petitioners' family is holding an extent of 6 acres 2 guntas in excess of the permissible limit and as such, has directed the same to vest in the Government. Petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same are before this Court. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the petition papers. 3. The fact that the second petitioner namely, father of the first petitioner had filed the declaration in Form 11 indicating the details with regard to the nature of the family, number of family members and the extent of land held cannot be in dispute. However, while assailing the order passed by the Land Tribunal, petitioners contend that the Tribunal has not kept in view the fact that the first petitioner being a major son as on the date of filing the declaration was entitled to his share of the property to be held independently. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that even otherwise keeping in view that the family consisted of seven members, they were entitled to larger extent of land which should have been kept in perspective. It is also case of the petitioners, pursuant to the declaration filed by the petitioners it was incumbent on the Land Tribunal to take note of all aspects including the classification of land and thereafter, ought to have passed the appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader would however seek to sustain the order by pointing out that no other specific details are indicated in Form 11 and as such, when the extent of land had been declared by the petitioners themselves, keeping in view the provisions, the order impugned has been passed. 5. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader would however seek to sustain the order by pointing out that no other specific details are indicated in Form 11 and as such, when the extent of land had been declared by the petitioners themselves, keeping in view the provisions, the order impugned has been passed. 5. In the light of the above, it is no doubt true that the petitioners had filed Form 11 through second petitioner who was managing the affairs of the family. Even if that be the position, the first petitioner was major and as such, whether his right was to be considered separately is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is that as provided in sub-section (2) to Section 63 of the Act, it provides with regard to the ceiling of land and indicates the manner in which the consideration is to be made for the purpose of allowing the extent of land held by the family and also such consideration will have to be made keeping in view the number of family members in the family. That apart, while considering the units that it is permissible to be held, the Tribunal should also keep in view the classification of soil of land based on which the extent to be retained is to be determined. In that light, perusal of the order dated 7-7-2010 would disclose, except for taking into consideration the details furnished in Form 11 and in that light, holding that the family is entitled to retain extent of 54 acres, there is no other consideration made to arrive at a conclusion to the manner in which the Tribunal was of the opinion that an extent of 6 acres 2 guntas was in excess of the family's holding. The details in that regard is required to be considered by the Tribunal and thereafter, appropriate order is required to be passed. 6. In that view, since the order impugned dated 7-7-2010 is not a speaking order, the same is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal, Basavakalyan, to restore the proceedings and consider the same in accordance with law. To enable such consideration, petitioners shall appear before the Land Tribunal voluntarily on 14-12-2015. The Land Tribunal shall thereafter provide opportunity and consider the matter in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed of.