VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL AFZALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this writ petition is directed against the order dated 26-2-1988. The matter has come up for preliminary hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned high court government pleader, Sri Thimmegowda, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) sri raikote, counsel for the petitioner has raised two points. The first point raised by him is that the phut kharab area should have been excluded. The second point raised by him is that the divorced sister ought to have been counted as a person constituting a separate family. In support of his first submission, the learned counsel has relied on the decision in P. Bhimachar v State of Mysore & others, reported in 1966(2) Mys. Lj. 184. Learned government pleader, on the other hand contended that the order passed by the tribunal cannot be found fault with.

(3.) i have given my consideration to the submissions made on either side. In the decision in .p. Bhimachar's case, the word 'phut kharab' is explained as meaning and refer to the land which is included in an assessed survey number, but which is unfit for cultivation. It is pointed out that every phut kharab land does not belong to government but for the purpose of assessment, uncultivable portion of the land or phut kharab portion of the land is excluded from consideration on the ground that it is uncultivable. However, it is pointed out that it does not cease to belong to the owner of the survey number. Section 63(1) of the Karnataka land refonns Act, 1961 (for short 'act') reads as under: