Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 181 (KAR)

Rukamoddin v. State of Karnataka

2023-02-01

E.S.INDIRESH

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The original petitioner herein has challenged the order dtd. 13/11/1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gokak, whereby, the application made by the original petitioner seeking declaration of the land under Sec. 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is considered and further the respondent-Tribunal directed the original petitioner to release the excess land in terms of Sec. 67(2) of the Act. 3. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, it is the case of the original petitionerlandlord that, the land to an extent of 226 acres 22 guntas are the ancestral property of the petitioners and the respondent-Government has acquired an extent of 20 acres 34 guntas for public use and remaining land to an extent of 205 acres 28 guntas are remained with the petitioners. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the original petitioner has submitted the details of land seeking declaration from the competent authority as per Annexure-B to the writ petition. In connection with the same, the original petitioner has submitted Form No.11 seeking declaration under Sec. 66 and 69 of the Act. Accepting Form No.11, filed by the original petitioner, the respondent-Tribunal has passed the order dtd. 13/11/1981 and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 4. Sri. D.M.Malli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the Land Tribunal without conducting enquiry has arrived at a conclusion with regard to the fact that, the petitioner is having excess land in terms of Sec. 63 of the Act, which requires to be interfered with, in this writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order dtd. 13/11/1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gokak. 6. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order dtd. 13/11/1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Gokak. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the averments made in the writ petition which would establish the fact that the original petitioner is having excess land as per Sec. 63 of the Act, whereby the original petitioner himself has filed declaration in Form No.11, stating the particulars of the land used for cultivation, plantation/crop, etc., The Tribunal after considering the declaration made by the original petitioner herein, arrived at a conclusion that, the original petitioner is having excess of land in terms of Sec. 63 of the Act and accordingly, passed the impugned order dtd. 13/11/1981, and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for in this petition. 7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the enquiry ought to have been conducted by the Land Tribunal, however, the said enquiry cannot be ordered in these peculiar types of case, where the petitioner himself has stated by way of declaration in Form No.11 that the original petitioner is owning the land to an extent of 226 acres 22 guntas and out of which 20 acres 34 guntas have been acquired by the State Government and remaining 205 acres and 28 guntas have remained with the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, there is no perversity or illegality in the order dtd. 30/11/1981 passed by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.