BASAGOUDA Vs. RAO SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel who represent the main contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate on merits in these two review petitions. Normally, we would not have entertained the petitions in question but it was pointed out that the authorities seem to have misunderstood the scope of the order passed by the High Court and secondly, that certain consequential orders have been passed which are creating operational difficulties in the area. A perusal of the notice issued indicates that the Deputy Commissioner was under the impression that the earlier orders are set aside and the case is remanded for a fresh decision. It is necessary for the Deputy Commissioner to peruse the judgment of this Court which will make it self-evident that the earlier orders had not been interfered with by the Court but that a limited enquiry was directed which is in the nature of a fact-finding enquiry for the purposes of deciding as to when exactly the alluvial land was formed as a result of the river changing its course. That is the limited scope of the enquiry which the Deputy Commissioner shall take note of and shall observe. Secondly, it should not take much time for these factual aspects to be ascertained and for a finding to be recorded. The original judgment indicates very clearly as to why the High Court had directed this enquiry and the consequences thereof.

(2.) THERE is an allegation and a counter-allegation with regard to the removal of the trees on the land in question. Mr. Hebballi submitted that while carrying out agricultural activities if some plants and weeds are required to be removed or if some area is required to be cleared for agricultural activities that the authorities have no right to prevent this. Learned Counsel is right to this extent but we do find from the pleadings that the holder's did in fact attempt to sell the standing trees and have the same removed and this was what was objected to. Since the enquiry is not complete and since the proceedings are still going on, it is very necessary that as far as changes of complexion of the land in question are concerned, that the holders should not resort to any acts such as removal of the trees, changing the nature of the user or induction of any third parties or creation of third party rights. This restriction will have to be observed until the proceedings are complete. At the same time it is clarified that the holders being agriculturists shall have unobstructed right to not only enter the land which they are entitled to but to also carry out their agricultural activities without any hindrance from any other parties. The authorities will take note of this fact.

(3.) THE further grievance that was projected was that if the enquiry were to proceed, that it would give scope to the respondents to further litigate. Our attention was drawn to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in D. M. Nanjappa (dead) by L. Rs v S. A. Ramappa and Others, wherein the Supreme Court has only reiterated the ambit and scope of section 92 of the Land Revenue Act. We had left the issue open but, since the scope of Section 92 has been vehemently agitated before us, we need to record certain restricted clarifications which are as follows: