Karnataka High Court
Smt.Vijayalaxmi W/O Sureshrao ... vs The Land Tribunal And Ors on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.No.203443/2014 (KLR, RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O
SURESHRAO,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE &
HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MALADKAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVDURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 101.
2. AISHWARYA W/O DEEPAK JOSHI,
D/O SURESHRAO,
AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST &
HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MALADKAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVDURGA,
DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.
3. RAJINI D/O SURESHRAO,
AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST &
HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MALADKAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVDURGA,
DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.
4. KIRANRAJA S/O SURESHRAO,
AGED ABOUT: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
2
R/O MALADKAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVDURGA,
DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.
5. SANDEEP S/O SURESHRAO,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O MALADKAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVDURGA,
DIST: RAICHUR-584 101.
.... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
DEVDURGA BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
FOR LAND REFORMS,
DEVDURGA-584 101.
3. SRINIVASRAO S/O
RADHAVENDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAHAVEER CIRCLE,
RAICHUR-584 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M.BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
BY SRI. R.S.SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
ANNEXURE-B DATED 09.07.1999 IN NO.LRM/DECLARATION/
1303:1304/75-796 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-K DATED 19.04.2002 IN
NO.LRM/DECLARATION/1303:1304/75-76 ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT AND IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ANNEXURE-L
3
DATED 19.02.2012 IN NO.LRM/DECLARATION/1303:75-76
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. (II) ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 NOT TO
TAKE POSSESSION OF LAND SY.NO.217 MEASURING 27 ACRES
8 GUNTAS OF MALADKAL VILLAGE TQ: DEVDURGA, DIST:
RAICHUR FROM THE PETITIONER OR DISTRIBUTE THE SAID
LAND SY.NO.217 MEASURING 27 ACRES 8 GUNTAS OF
MALADKAL VILLAGE TO ANY OTHER PERSONS AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 TO SURRENDER SOME OTHER LAND AS PER
SECTION 67(2) OF K.L.R.ACT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by challenging the impugned
order dated 09.07.1999 passed by the Land Tribunal,
Devdurga wherein 134 acres 8 guntas is held to be in
excess of ceiling limit under the Land Reforms Act, 1961
(henceforth called as Act, 1961). This proceeding is
initiated in terms of the declaration filed under Section 66
of Act, 1961. The application is filed by Sarojabai W/o. N.
Raghavendra Desai and Yashodhabai W/o. Srinivasa Rao.
It is the contention of the petitioners that the properties
are joint family properties in which the husband of
petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 5 are also
having share.
2. It is submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that, the impugned order is passed behind the
back of the petitioners. The notice is issued on
19.02.2012 directing the petitioner No.5 to hand over the
property bearing Sy No.217 of Maladkal Village, Devdurga
Taluk. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend
that impugned order dated 09.07.1999 marked at
Annexure-B is passed without hearing the petitioners. The
petitioners contend that they did possess the land within
the ceiling limits under the Act, 1961. Thus the question
whether they held the land in excess of ceiling limits or not
is to be considered after hearing the petitioners. The
petitioners contend that the decision that land held by the
petitioners is in excess of ceiling limits is an erroneous
decision which is passed without hearing the petitioners.
3. The annexure-L endorsement dated
19.02.2012 which is also impugned in this writ petition is
issued pursuant to the order dated 09.07.1999. Under
Section 66 of Act, 1961 the Tribunal holding an enquiry
has to decide whether the holding of land is in excess of
ceiling limits or not. Such enquiry to be conducted after
issuing notice to all the persons claiming right in respect of
such land. This procedure is not carried out by the Land
Tribunal, Devdurga.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing
for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that in case
direction is given the Land Tribunal to hold fresh enquiry
after issuing notice to the petitioners, said exercise will be
carried out in accordance with law.
5. The respondent No.3 is the grandson of
Yashodhabai who had filed declaration under Section 66 of
Act and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3
would also submit that he is not in position to show that
notice was issued by the Land Tribunal before passing
impugned order dated 09.07.1999.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
also place reliance on the judgment in the case of
Meenakshamma V/s. Land Tribunal, Raichur & Ors
reported in Karnataka Law journal 1978(1) Page 221. Ratio
laid down in this judgment is applicable to this case.
Referring to Section 66 and 67 of the Act, 1961 as well as
Rule 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules of 1974, this
Court has held that before passing order under Section 66
and 67 of the Act, 1961, the Land Tribunal has to issue
notice to interested persons. Since the Land Tribunal has
not carried out such exercise appropriate order is required
to be passed. Under these circumstances, writ petition is
allowed.
Hence, the following :-
ORDER
i. The impugned order dated 09.07.1999
marked at Annexure-G passed by
respondent No.1 and the impugned order
dated 19.02.2012 passed by respondent No.2
are quashed.
ii. The matter is remitted back to the Land
Tribunal, Devdurga to hold fresh enquiry after
issuing notice to all the interested persons
including the petitioners and respondent No.3 of
this petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hd
