ESHWARAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition is by persons who claim to be in possession and cultivation of an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy No 38/23 of Sanyasi Kodamagge village, Bhadravathi taluk, Shimoga district, since 1979 or before and earlier through their predecessors. Writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25-3-2009 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Revision Petition No 305 of 2005, dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order dated 16-4-2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga district in RA No 4/2003-04. Writ petitioners have sought for quashing both these orders.

(2.) Order dated 16-4-2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was in an appeal that had been preferred by the fourth respondent under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the Act] and was in turn directed against the order dated 21-2-2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga sub-division in RA No 6/2001-02, under which order the Assistant Commissioner had in turn affirmed the order dated 10/27-8-1998 passed by the tahsildar. Bhadravathi taluk in LND(1)NCR.CR.6/98-99, granting an extent of 1 acre of land in the very survey number in favour of the writ petitioner on his application in form No 50 and regularizing his unauthorized cultivation in respect of this extent of land.

(3.) The Deputy Commissioner having set aside this grant made in favour of the writ petitioner at the instance of fourth respondent and having remanded the matter to the tahsildar to hold a fresh enquiry and to consider the application of the writ petitioner for regularization of his unauthorized cultivation only after the tahsildar decides afresh an earlier cancellation of grant order, cancelling the grant of 1 acre 9 guntas of land in favour of fourth respondent's father, which was a grant made in the year 1977. This grant had come to be cancelled by the tahsildar as per order dated 10-11-1987 for the reason that the grantee was not actually cultivating the land and also in violation of the terms of the grant had transferred the subject land in favour of writ petitioner by way of mortgage and during spot inspection it was found that the writ petitioner was in cultivation of the land and not the original grantee.