S C CHINNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions constitutional validity of the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Amendment Act, 1978 (to be referred to as the amendment Act) and the notices issued under the Amendment Act have been impugned.

(2.) Since the constitutional validity of the said amendment Act has been upheld by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Laxman Gowda, (W. P. No. 2613 of 1979 (Reported in (1981 1 Kant LJ 1) and other connected writ petitions), these writ petitions cannot succeed.

(3.) However, Mr. Gangi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it the Tahsildar holds an enquiry pursuant to the notices impugned in these writ petitions, he must afford an opportunity to the petitioners to place before him the material to show that the lands concerned in the notices have been regranted to the holders or the authorized holders under Section 5 or 6, as the case may be Karnataka Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as the Act) or that an application made for regrant by the holders or the authorized holders under Section 5 or 6, as the case may be, of Offices Abolition Act, red to as the Act) or made for regrant by authorised holders the case may be, of the Act has been pending disposal before the Authority concerned. If it is shown that such regrant is made, the Tahsildar should drop the proceeding initiated by the notices impugned in these writ petitions. If the application made under Section 5 or 6, as the case may be, of the Act is shown to be pending before the Authority concerned, the Tahsildar should await the decision on such application, before proceeding further on the basis of the notices impugned in these writ petitions.