LAWS(SC)-1996-3-33

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KRISHNOJI RAO

Decided On March 25, 1996
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
KRISHNOJI RAO Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the division bench of the Karnataka High court made on 11/6/1990 in Writ Appeal No. 283 of 1986. The controversy is regulated by the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (60 of 1950 (for short "the Act"). The land bearing Survey No. 87 of Revadihal village was unassessed and uncultivable waste land as per the Mutation Entry No. 313 dated 20/8/1960. The Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad in his order dated 17/6/1964 assigned an extent of 109 acres 34 guntas of land in the said survey for public purpose, namely, grazing purposes for the village cattle. On 6/4/1964, it was decided that an extent of 100 acres of land in the said survey be transferred to the Forest Department for afforestation. The government in its order dated 1/8/1964 granted actual possession of 100 acres of land to be handed over to the Forest Department. It was entered in the Revenue records by Mutation Entry No. 413 dated 1/8/1966. The Divisional Commissioner in his order dated 27/11/1964 granted 92 acres out of 100 acres to 23 persons for cultivation and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. On 4/3/1968, the Assistant Commissioner regranted an extent of 201 acres 34 guntas of land in the same survey number to the respondents setting apart an area of 109 acres 34 guntas for grazing purposes of the village cattle and he also reserved 100 acres for the Forest Department for afforestation. The Deputy Commissioner by sue motu order dated 24/1/1977 has cancelled the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 4/3/1968.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 2236 of 1977 in the High court. The learned Single Judge of the High court by order dated 4/12/19855 has partly allowed the writ petition and directed to grant an extent of 201 acres 34 guntas to the respondent. When the appellant filed appeal, the division bench dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave.