RAGHAVENDRA SWAMIGALU KADALABAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases, common questions of fact and law are involved and the impugned notices are identical in nature. Hence, these cases arc disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The lands in question, stated to belong to the petitioners originally, were partof the lands of Kadalabal Village, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District of the erstwhile State of Madras. The case of the petitioners is that more than a century ago the lands were enfranchised by the erstwhile State of Madras under the Madras Enfranchised Inams Act, 1862 and 1866 and therefore, they ceased to be Inam lands as far back as 1977 and 1978. The record of rights on which reliance is placed by the petitioners for the years 1982-83 disclose that the lands in question do not belong to the category of Inam lands as could be seen from Annexures-A to E. These lands were formerly governed as unalicnated lands under Madras Land Revenue Code and after on 1-1-1965 by Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and so also thereafter. With the advent of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (Karnataka Act 10/1978) which came into force on 8-5-1978, the respondents are the authorities concerned in regard to the implementation of the said Act. Respondent-3 issued notice No. LRM 92/1982, dated 15-1-1983 vide Annexure-F acting on the premise that the lands of the petitioners come within the sweep of the said Act and therefore that the petitioners are in illegal occupation of lands. According to the authorities, the lands came to be vested in respondent-1. The petitioners were directed to surrender possession of the lands within fifteen days, failing which, necessary action would be taken against the petitioners in accordance with provisions of the Act. According to the petitioners, they are all owners of the respective lands and they are in occupation and possession as well as cultivation of the same. The petitioners are justifying their occupation and possession on the ground that the revenue records clearly show that no part of the lands in question come under the purview of the Act and that these lands are private lands over which the respondents have no jurisdiction under the Act. In fact, the petitioners are questioning the impugned notices on the basis that the Act is totally inapplicable and therefore, the impugned notices are unjustified.

(3.) Arising out of these facts is the question whether the petitioners are entitled tothe relief of quashing of notices dated 15-1-1983 under Annexures-F, J, L, N, Q, S, V, Y, Z-l, Z-2, Z-5 and Z-9 to Z-13 issued by respondent-3.