VENKATASWAMY Vs. TAHSILDAR BHADRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the essential facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: the petitioner who is an agriculturist was the owner of 6.38 acres of land in survey No. 54, 8.38 acres in survey No. 60 and 1.25 acres in survey No. 61 of melina sampally village, hosanagar taluk, shimoga district. With the introduction of sharavathi hydro electric project these lands came to be submerged the petitioner underwent a transformation in status and became a displaced agriculturist having lost all his lands.

(2.) the Mysore land revenue (Amendment) rules, 1960 came to the rescue of the petitioner since the rules provide for grant of lands to the displaced holders as well as tenants, holding out statutory assurance of rehabilitation by grant of land to the displaced holders. The only limitation is that the rehabilitation will be limited to the grant of 20 acres of land as the ceiling limit. According to Rule 43(e)(g) notwithstanding anything contained regarding grant of lands to other persons, a displaced holder is entitled to the priority even over persons who belong to scheduled caste. The statutory priority is of such a special nature that it confers priority even over the weaker sections. However, it must be stated that the petitioner himself belongs to bhovi community which is a part of scheduled caste under the Constitution (scheduled caste) Order, 1950.

(3.) survey No. 1 of hadalagatta village, bbadravathi taluk, measures 222 acres in area and it was reserved for the purposes of grant exclusively to displaced holders by virtue of government order dated 4-12-1961. As required by the then prevailing rules of procedure, the petitioner applied to the special land acquisition officer, hosanagar, for grant of 10 acres in hadalagatta village. The petitioner was permitted to cultivate 9.39 acres in blockno. Ii of the said land. This is the very land in respect of which records were built up by the revenue inspector on 11-1-1961 for the rehabilitation of the petitioner to the extent of 9.39 acres. It is asserted by the petitioner that the land earmarked for the grant to the petitioner was indicated in blue colour in a sketch prepared by the revenue inspector and it was also shown to the petitioner. Proposal of the revenue inspector was accepted by the tahsildar, hosanagar and it ultimately reached the special officer for rehabilitation, shimoga, for final approval. The grievance of the petitioner is notwithstanding the recommendation made by the special officer restricted the grant only to the extent of 5.39 acres at an upset prices and a saguvali chit was issued to the petitioner on 7-10-1965, under order of the special tahsildar dated 16-11-1961. When the petitioner came to know that instead of 9.39 acres only 5.39 acres were granted to him, he claimed the balance extent of land. At this juncture the revenue authorities were initiated action for eviction of persons who had occupied lands in excess of what had been granted to them. However, the government issued orders through the revenue secretary that if expropriated ryots had occupied lands in accordance with the directions given by the special land acquisition officer, their possession should not be disturbed. When an eviction notice was served on the petitioner the petitioner promptly gave a reply. The record of rights indicate that the petitioner continues to be in possession of 4 acres of land besides 5.39 acres granted to him.