SHIVANGOUDA v. THE STATE OF KARNATA

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.TNC:D:SR:840 DATED 28/05/2002 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT VIDE ANNEXURE-D. B. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE NO.TNC:D:SR:840 DATED 03/02/2011 PASSED BY THE TAHASILDAR, MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT VIDE ANNEXURE-C. C. ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXRUES-F AND J AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN THE MATTER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.05.2002, passed by the Land Tribunal, Mudhol, produced as per Annexure-D and to the notice dated 03.02.2011, issued by respondent No.3 – Tahasildar, Mudhol, produced as per Annexure-C, and direction to the 3rd respondent to consider representations, produced as per Annexures-F & J and also to take appropriate decision in the matter.

#2. Heard Smt. Pallavi Pachhapure, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate respondents. Perused the materials on record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner initially owned 121 acres 19 guntas of land. There was a partition amongst petitioner No.1 and his wife as per the partition deed dated 24.01.1971. The petitioner retained 68 acres 17 guntas in four different survey numbers i.e. Sy.Nos. 155/2, 97, 178, 250 of Yadahalli village, whereas 53 acres 02 guntas was allotted in favour of his wife. Petitioner No.1 and his wife have filed Form No.11 before the Land Tribunal declaring, the lands that they are holding, as required under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (‘KLR Act’ for short). The land Tribunal held an enquiry and passed the impugned order as per Annexure-D holding that, the total extent of the land held by the petitioners, if considered as ‘D’ class will be 83 acres 22 guntas. If potkharab of 1 acre 07 guntas is deducted, the total extent of land held by the petitioners will be 82 acres 15 guntas. The ceiling limit in respect of ‘D’ class - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011 land is 10 units i.e. 54 acres. Therefore, concluded that the petitioners are having excess land of 28 acres 15 guntas, which is to be surrendered to the Government. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

#4. According to the petitioners, the land Tribunal has considered the land as ‘C’ Class having the irrigation in respect of 11 acres 11 guntas which is erroneous. Even as per Record of Rights produced as per Annexures-G and H, the Government is owning 18 acres 16 guntas in Sy.No.97 which forms cannal. The said extent of 18 acres 16 guntas was not excluded by the land Tribunal. Moreover, there is in all 7 acres 10 guntas of potkharab in respect of the 4 items of properties. The Land Tribunal committed an error in deducting only 1 acre 07 guntas and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the relief. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011

#5. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Land Tribunal has passed the detailed order assigning valid reasons. It is found that petitioners were in possession of 68 acres 17 guntas of land, but they have not produced any document to show that 3 acres of land in Sy.No.178 was acquired by the Government for forming the canal. Therefore, such contention was rejected. The revenue records disclose that Sy.No.155/2 was having 0.05 acres potkharab, Sy.No.250 is having 1 acre 02 guntas of potkharab. There was no potkharab measuring 7 acre 10 guntas as contended by the petitioners. Therefore, only 1 acre 07 guntas of potkharab was deducted from the total holding.

#6. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the impugned order, the land in question was classified on the basis of the documents placed on record. Under - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011 such circumstances, the petition liable to be dismissed.

#7. On perusal of the original records secured from the Land Tribunal by the learned AGA and in the light of the submissions made by both parties, it is found that there are sufficient materials in support of the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal that only Sy.No.155/2 is having 0.05 acres of potkharab and Sy.No.250 having 1.02 acres of potkharab. Thus only

1.07 acres of potkharab is to be deducted from the total extent. I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioners, that the total area of potkharab in all the survey numbers together is 7 acres 10 guntas, hence the same is liable to be rejected.

#8. According to the petitioners a portion of the land in Sy.No.178 situated at Yadahalli was acquired by the Government for the purpose of forming the canal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011 Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the original records contended that, there is reference to GLBC i.e., Ghataprabha Left Bank Canal and therefore it proves acquisition of the land. Mere reference to GLBC in the record cannot be a ground to accept the contention of the petitioners. When it is the specific contention of the petitioners that the specific area in Sy.No.178 was acquired for forming the canal, definitely they would have necessary document in support of the same. But the same is not produced before the Land Tribunal. However learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to produce relevant documents before the Land Tribunal, praying that the matter may be remanded back to the Land Tribunal once again.

#9. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to classification of the land as required under Section 67 of the KLR Act. Even though a finding is recorded by the Land Tribunal - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011 that the land in question is classified as ‘C’ and it is not ‘D’, learned Additional Government Advocate could not justify the same with any materials that are available in the original records. As per section 67(1)(a) of the KLR act, the Tahsildar is required to determine to which class, i.e., ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’, the land belongs for the purpose of classifying the same. In the absence of any materials to show that the Tahsildar has followed the procedure to classify the land in question, I am of the opinion that the matter is required to be remanded to the Land Tribunal for the limited purpose of such classification and also to give an opportunity to the petitioners to produce relevant document to justify their contention that a portion of Sy.No.178 of Yadahalli village was acquired by the Government for forming the canal.

#10. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted impugned order was passed on - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011

28.5.2002. But the writ petition came to be filed during 2011 that is after long lapse of 9 years. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after addressing the arguments before the land Tribunal, the matter was adjourned sine die, without giving any date and that on one fine morning the order was passed get support from the order sheet. There is no compliance of Section 48A(6) of KLR Act, which requires sending of the copy of every order passed by it, to the Tahsildar and the parties concerned. The original records do not suggest that the said procedure is followed by the Land Tribunal. Under such circumstances, the reasons assigned by the petitioners in petition seeking condonation of delay, seem to be reasonable. Hence I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the matter is to be remanded to the Land Tribunal in the light of the discussion held above. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following : - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 28.05.2002 passed as per Annexure-D and notice

03.02.2011 issued Annexure-C, by Land Tribunal, Mudhol, are hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remanded back to the Land Tribunal, Mudhol for a limited purpose of (1) following procedure contemplated under section 67(1)(a) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 to determine the class of the land by the Tahsildar and (2) to permit the petitioners to produce documents if any, in support of their contention that any portion of Sy.No.178 of Yadahalli village, was acquired by the Government for forming the canal. (iv) The parties shall appear before the Land Tribunal, Mudhol on 05.05.2025, without waiting for fresh notice. (v) Upon appearance of parties, the Land Tribunal is required to decide the issue in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5754 WP No. 65147 of 2011 accordance with law expeditiously at least within 3 months from the date of their appearance, without fail. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB: Para 1 to 6 EM: Para 7 to end. CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2