GURURAJAGOUDA VENKANA GOUDA Vs. TAHSILDAR MUNDARGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the owner of some agricultural lands. He has taken Government loan against the security of those lands. The lands were tenanted, and with effect from 1st March, 1974, the lands stood vested in the State and the tenants have been granted occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal. Thereupon, the Tahsildar determined the compensation payable to the petitioner in respect of the lands. It has been estimated at Rs. 11,244 out of which it is said only Rs. 2,000 has been paid to the petitioner.

(2.) in the meantime, the Tahsildar has taken proceedings against the petitioner to recover the loan due from him as arrears of land revenue. Challenging the legality of the proceedings, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) The only question urged for the petitioner is that the Tahsildar should not have taken recourse to recover the loan pmount from the petitioner without giving a set off for the same against the compensation payable to him. Reliance was placed on S. 50 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It seems to me that the contention is well founded and must be accepted as correct. Under sub-section (1) of S. 50, the Tashildar while determining the amount under S. 48-B shall also determine any mortgage or other encumbrance lawfully subsisting on the land on the date of vesting and the amount under the mortgage or the encumbrance in respect of such land and the amount determined thereon shall be a charge on the amount of compensation payable in respect of such land. Sub-section (2) thereof states that if the total amount payable in respect of the encumbrance is less than the amount payable in respeet of such land, it shall be deducted from such amount and the balance only be paid to the land owner or to other persons interested.