DEEPCHAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari or order or direction quashing the order dated 28-8-1980 in No. 37/242/80/koppal, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-E ; order dated 25-4-1985 in No. Sr/lrm/17/80-81, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-F and the order dated 19-11-1985 in No. 18/apl/85, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-G .

(2.) the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are as under : the petitioner had filed a, declaration in form No. 11 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act showing therein his holding and number of members of his family. When this was so, it appears that the tahsildar, land reforms, koppal appears to have noticed that survey No. 421 measuring 12 acres 36 guntas ; survey No. 416 measuring 10 acres 28 guntas; and survey No. 406 measuring 4-00 acres though standing in the name of the declarant were not shown in his declaration. In that view of the matter, the tahsildar appears to have issued a show cause notice as to why a penalty of Rs. 500/- should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner, it appears, did not reply to the said show cause notice. Under these circumstances, by an order dated 6-5-1980 the special tahsildar passed an order as under : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_514_KANTLJ2_1991Image1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_514_KANTLJ2_1991Image2.jpg</IMG> the instant petitioner, it appears, did not comply with the direction reflected in the order dated 6-5-1980 culled out hereinabove. In this view of the matter, the special tahsildar, land reforms, koppal purporting to act under Section 66-a(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short the act) passed an order directing that the right, title and interest of the instant petitioner in the lands held to the extent in excess of the ceiling area are forfeited and vested in the government. The copy of the said order is seen at Annexure-E . An appeal appears to have been preferred by the instant petitioner before the assistant commissioner, koppal. The assistant commissioner by his order dated 25-4-1985 dismissed the appeal. The copy of the said order is seen at Annexure-F . The revision petition which was preferred before the divisional commissioner, gulbarga also met with the same result. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition praying for the reliefs referred to hereinabove.

(3.) I have heard Sri u.l. narayana rao, as also his junior lawyer Sri nayak, learned counsels for the petitioner and Smt. A. Nimmi swamy, learned high court government pleader for respondents.