BASAPPA Vs. TAHSILDAR, GOKAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court in the instant writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that his father Sri. Siddappa Ajjappa Dhavaleshwar was the tenant in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.73/3 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas carved out of original Sy.No.73 situated in Dhavaleshwar village, Gokak Taluk, Belagavi District, which originally belonged to one Sri Bhimappa Gireppa Desai who was holding the said land as watandar. After the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act came into force, the said Sri. Bhimappa Gireppa Desai allegedly filed an application for re-grant of the land in question and considering the same, the land in question was regranted to him. The said Bhimappa Gireppa Desai died on 13.06.1963 and after his death his son Sri. Ambarishvarma Bhimappa Desai had succeeded to the property and he sold the land in question to the petitioner 's father under a registered sale deed dated 31.08.1965. On the strength of the said sale deed, the petitioner 's father Sri. Siddappa Ajjappa Dhavaleshwar had become the absolute owner of the land in question ever since 31.08.1965. When the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar had passed an order on 06.09.1974 in M.E. No.951 (Annexure-C) stating that the land in question was a tenanted land and Bhimappa Gireppa Desai was the landlord of the property and the petitioner 's father was the tenant of the land and therefore, in view of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the land has been vested with the State Government and accordingly in the revenue records of the land in question, the name of the State Government was entered in Column No.9 of the RTC extracts of the land in question. After the death of petitioner 's father, the petitioner made an application to delete the name of the Government from the revenue records of the land in question. Along with the said application, the petitioner had also produced copy of the sale deed under which the petitioner 's father had purchased the land in question. The jurisdictional Revenue Inspector submitted a report recommending petitioner 's application, but the Tahasildar has passed the impugned order dated 13.03.2019 informing the petitioner that his prayer to delete the name of the State Government from the revenue records of the land in question cannot be considered. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in question having regard to the sale deed executed by the erstwhile owner of the property in favour of the petitioner 's father. He submits that subsequent to the said sale deed, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Sri. Bhimappa Gireppa Desai and the petitioner or his father and therefore, the Tahasildar was not justified in passing the order Annexure-C stating that the land vested with the State Government. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivamurthayya Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1997 KAR 3233 and contends that the Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. He also submits that there is no Form No.7 filed in the present case by anybody seeking occupancy rights of the land in question and therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained.