PAVADAPPA YELLAPPA Vs. GOVINDACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions, jointly filed under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitutution of India are directed against two orders, one dated 21.5.75 of the Tahsildar, Ron. (respondent -4 herein) passed in case No. KLR. SR. 1 (Ex.A) on his file, and the other, dated 10.5.76 of the Assistant Commissioner,. Gadag, (Respondent 3) passed in Case No. KLR AP-1J75 and KLR.SR.7J75 (Ex. C) on his file. By his order, Ex. C, the Asssistant Commissioner has confirmed the order of the Tahsildar, Ron, Ex.A.

(2.) The 1st respondent, who is the owner of several items of agricultural lands situated in village Kuravina- koppa, Taluka Ron, fully described at Ex. A sought resumption of the same, under S. 14 of . the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the Act) as it stood prior to its amendment by Karnataka, Act No. 1 of 1974. Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974, which came into force on 1.3.74, introduced several changes in the Act, one of them being the deletion of S. 14 of the Act. S. 14 provided for resumption by the landlords of their lands under lease under certain terms and conditions stipulated in, that provision. Prior to 1.3.74 the Munsiffs of the State Judicial Service had been constituted into Tribunals and had been conferred with jurisdiction to deal with certain matters and disputes arising under the Act. On the coming into force of Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974 these Tribunals were abolished and other statutory bodies and authorities were created to deal with different aspects of disputes and questions arising under the Act.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the lands referred to above have been under the cultivation of these petitioners and the 2nd respondent, Muktumsab Imamsab Pinjar, as lessees. When Karnataka Act No. 1/74 came into force the claim of the 1st respondent under S. 14 was still pending before the Land Tribunal, Ron. He appears to have transferred those claims to the file of the Tahsildar Ron. (Rep- pondent 4) purporting to act under sub-section, (3) (a) of Section 91 of the Karnataka; Act No. 1/74. Thus, assuming jurisdiction to deal with, these matters the 4th respondent proceeded to hear the parties. He appears to have recorded some statements, heard the concerned, and held that the 1st respondent, who was the claimant before him, was a soldier and as such was entitled to resume, the. entire extent of lands under the cultivation of these tenants, under Section 15 of the Act. It is this order that has been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner as referred to above.