G. HUCHARAYAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA 577201, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGARA SUB -DIVISI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have sought for quashing of the endorsements dated 28.09.1998 issued by fourth respondent Annexures - A to D, Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner -third respondent dated 07.12.2000 in R.A.Nos.105 to 108/98 -99 -Annexure -E order of the Deputy Commissioner passed. in R.A. No.25/ 2000 -01 dated 12.08.2002 and corrigendum issued thereunder dated 05.09.2002 and order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in R.P.Nos.104/2002 8; 104(a to c)/02 dated 02.12.2009 Heard Sri. K.G. Sadashivaiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Vijaykumar A. Patil, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

(2.) FACTS in brief leading to filing of these writ petitions are as under: i. Petitioners are claiming to be poor agricultural labourers and had : ought for regularization of portions of land situated in Survey No. 89 of Tadagani Village, Shikaripura Taiuk, Shintoga District, by filing applications in Form No.50, by also contending that they are in possession of their respective portions of lands from past 25 years preceding the date of their applications. They also contend that they have been cultivating the same and have remitted T.T. fine with the fourth respondent Secretary for Regularization of unauthorized occupation who has issued receipts for receiving T.T. fine. Fourth respondent herein issued endorsements dated 28.09.1998 at Annexures -A to D to the petitioners intimating them that their applications for regularization of their occupation cannot be granted in view of the Government order prohibiting "kharab land" being granted. Aggrieved by these endorsements, appeals came to be filed before the Assistant Commissioner who after scrutiny of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum was of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeals by order dated. 7 -12 -2000 Annexure -E. It was held that fourth respondent was justified in rejecting their applications since the Assistant Director, Land Records, Sagar Sub -Division had informed that the land in question is recorded as "kharab land" and such land cannot be granted. This order of the Assistant Commissioner came to be affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in RA.No.25/2000 -01 vide order dated 12.08.2002, Annexure -F which came to be rectified by correcting the name of the parties in the cause title by corrigendum dated 05.09.2002. Petitioners persued their grievance before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in R.A.No.104/2002, 104/(a to c)/2002 which came to be dismissed on the ground that when orders are passed on merits under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Revision petitions would not be maintainable under Sub -Section (3) of Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is these orders, which have been called in question in these writ petitions.

(3.) PER contra, Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Government Pleader would support the impugned orders and contend that lands in question is a Rs. kharab land' as stated by the Office of the Land Records and in view of the Government Circular No. RC 91 LGP 92 dated 22.05,1993 prohibiting grant of 'kharab land' it was not granted and as such he supports the impugned orders and seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions. He would also fairly submit that in the RTC extracts relating g to the year 1982 -83 to 1983 ª84 in column No.9 it has been reflected as Rs. mufat' as per the Rs. akarband' and this entry is not correct entry and the correct entry is the classify -mum) of the land in question as 'kharab land' as per survey settlement. On these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records it would emerge from, impugned endorsements at Annexures -A to D issued to the petitioners that applications of the petitioner was not considered on merits and it has been rejected and/or the petitioners have been intimated of their applications not being entertained for grant of the lands in their occupation and unauthorised cultivation, on the ground that said land has been classified as Rs. Icharab land' in the records maintained by the survey settlement. It is net in dispute that if the land is classified as a aharab land' such lands cannot be granted even if those land have been in unauthorised occupation and cultivation as there is a specific embargo for grant of such lands as per the Government circular No,.RC 91 LGP 92 dated 22.05.1993. However, in the instant case the issue revolves around the fact that as to whether the land in question is factually Rs. Icharab land' as per entry in survey records or it is a Rs. gomal land' as reflected in RTC records. Even according to the learned Government Pleader for the years 1984 -85 to 1988 -89 and 1994 -95 to 1999 -2000 lands in question have been classified in the RTC at column No.9 as Rs. mufat' which means "free land" or land left for free pasturage. In other words it means the land in question cannot be classified as a Rs. Icharab land'. If it is a gomal land then there would be no embargo for the committee to consider the applications filed by the petitioners for regularization of their unauthorized cultivation and occupation. Though the learned Government Pleader would contend that the said entry is a wrong entry in the revenue records there is no discussion either in the impugned endorsements at Anneyures - A to D or in the order passed by the third respondent at Annexure -E on this issue. Entry in a revenue record is rubuttable presumption and unless such entry is rebutted to be incorrect same stands the test of scrutiny. Thus, the status of the land has remained unanswered by these two authorities. The RTC extracts produced by the learned counsel for petitioner today along with memo would reflect that lands in survey Nos.89/1 and 89/7 have been classified as 'Mufat land'. Since the issue regarding the status of the land has not been considered in proper perspective either by securing or summoning the land records from the office of the survey settlement or from other authorities and affording the petitioner an opportunity to disprove the contents as found therein or by providing an opportunity to the petitioners to demonstrate that land in question is not a Rs. kharab land', the endorsements A to D issued to the petitioners by rejecting their applications without considering these aspects they cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.