SIDDAMMA Vs. TAHSILDAR TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the only question raised for consideration is whether the action taken by the Tahsildar, Tumkur 1st respondent, herein, by issuing notice dated 15-3-1990 (Annexure-A), seeking to evict the petitioner from Sy. Nos. 48/3 and 35 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas and 1 acre 13 guntas respectively, acting under Section 7(1) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is just and proper? and whether the view taken by the District Judge in appeal holding that no appeal lies against the action taken by the Tahsildar under Section 7(1) of the Act, be justified?

(2.) The notice Annexure-A was challenged before the learned district Judge, Tumkur, in Misc. Appeal No. 10/19 /O seeking to set aside that notice on more than one ground. The learned District Judge, who heard the learned counsel on both sides and disposed of the appeal, as per Annexure-B, held during the course of his order that:

(3.) Meeting the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, petitioner herein, the learned Judge referring to the scope of Section 7(l)(d) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, has held as follows: