CHINNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has a checkered history. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased agricultural land measuring 6 acres 1 gunta situated at Kota village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District on 15.03.1966, from its previous owner Sri Thimmappa S/o Buddappa. However, having come under the influence of the revenue officials, who claimed that the land in question was an inam land and therefore without seeking the permission of the revenue authorities, the petitioner could not have purchased the inam land, the petitioner made an application seeking re-grant of the land from the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur under the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954, in the year 1991. The Deputy Commissioner, Raichur rejected the application made by the petitioner, by order dated 24.02.1997. In an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal also rejected the contentions of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.4113/1999. This Court, by order dated 10.02.1999 dismissed the petition however reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue other remedies available to him to protect his possession. On 05.05.2016, the petitioner once again made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur and sought for the inam records. At the same time, the petitioner made an application before the Tahsildar, Lingasugur on 26.07.2016 stating that he is ready and willing to remit the inam premium due and further prayed for deleting the name of the Government and mutating his name in the revenue records. On 24.11.2016, it is contended, that the Tahsildar, Lingasugur forwarded the application to the Assistant Commissioner with due recommendation, along with the checklist. On 06.01.2017 the Tahsildar further recommended the case of the petitioner along with a panchanama clearly recommending that the petitioner was cultivating the land in question even before 1963- 64 and subsequent to the purchase, the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the land in question and therefore opined that the land may be re-granted to the petitioner. However, by the impugned order dated 24.05.2017, the Additional Deputy Commissioner rejected the application made by the petitioner stating that the Deputy Commissioner was not empowered to review his order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been misdirected by the revenue officials initially by stating that the land in question is an inam land. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-N which is said to be the ledger extract of the inam lands or inam register and as per the entry in the remarks column, the land in question is not an inam land. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter may be remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner to look into all these aspects and give his finding as to whether the land in question is an inam land or not.