H A MANJUNATHA BHATTA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the orders passed by the 4th respondent in case No. RA 13/2000-01, dated 19-9-2000 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 5-7-1993 in case No. NCR 2276/91-92 and the order passed by the 3rd respondent in case No. BAHU 3:98-99, dated 20-3-2000.

(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of Neelandur, Haraveri Village and his house is surrounded by the Government land in Sy. No. 160 of the said village. He has been cultivating the portion of the said land measuring 5 acres and 12 guntas for the last 20 years. Accordingly, he has filed an application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the said land before the Competent Authority. The Land Grant Committee has considered the application of the petitioner and rejected the application filed by him in view of Rule 108 (i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (for short the "rules") on the ground that the petitioner's income exceeds more than Rs. 25,000/ -. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the regularisation Committee dated 5-7-1993, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner after hearing the petitioner and after going through the entire material available on record and also taking into consideration the detailed report submitted by the Revenue Inspector to find out the genuineness of the application filed by the petitioner whether he is entitled for regularisation of the unauthorised occupation of the land in question, passed a detailed and considered order giving details of the income of the petitioner and total holding of the petitioner and his wife and held that the income of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 25,000/- and also held that the holding exceed more than the prescribed limit as per the relevant Rules. Taking all these facts, he rejected the application filed by the petitioner for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the land in question confirming the order of the Regularisation Committee.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner in turn after considering all the facts and circumstances and the orders passed by the Regularisation Committee and the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the said appeal and the application filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner is a sufficient holder. He has also taken into consideration that the land in question is a forest land. Therefore, there is no need to consider the application of the petitioner for regularisation of the unauthorised occupation of the land in question. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the three authorities viz. , respondents 2 to 4 the petitioner has filed this petition.