RAMAKANTARAO ARSH1NIGI Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL RAICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 24-11 1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Raichur, in Case No. LRM/6l/76 /7, holding that he possessed 129 acres and 10 guntas of dry land over and above the ceiling limit, be quashed.

(2.) The impugned order is at Ext. F. It narrates that the petitioner had not produced any record for having disposed of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 133, 1 . and 138 of Arshinigi and that those lands still stood in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal decided 10 reject the contention of the petitioner that these lands shoudl not be included in computting the area of the laud held by him in excess of the ceiling limit. It nextly narrates that the petitioner had not filed the age certificates of the rest of his sons and therefore, his claim that his second son Srinatn was a major, was to be rejected The contention of the petitioner is that on receipt of the provisional notice, he filed objections by way of an application on 30 8-1977 as per the copy at Ext. C and in that he had stated that his second son Srinath was born on 9 2-1959 as per the horoscope, a copy of which was attached to the said application, and the Tribunal has failed to consider that fact. He has also contended about the transfer of lands by way of registered sale deeds. Taking the contention regarding transfer of lands in Sy. Nos. 133, 134 and 138, 1 find that the said transfer has been made by a registered sale dced on 29 19 & 5. It is further scen that the sale deed has been registered as No. 652 of 1965 in Book-I, Volume 5 at pages 126 to 129 of the said date, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Raichur. This fact brings the case of the petetitioner within the purview of S. 128 of one Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). S. 128(1) of the Act lays down that any person acquiring right over the land by way of purchase etc., has to inform the prescribed officer-the Village Accountant-about such acquisition and then mutation has to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder. S. 128 (4) of the Act lays down that the registering authority shall register if fees fixed have been paid, and after so registering, the registering authority, under- S. 129 of the Act, shall give information to the prescribed officer concerned with mutation of entries in the Record of Rights. Such prescribed officer is the village accountant Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal that the lands still stood in the name of the petitioner and it could not accept the contention of the petitioner, cannot be sustained. No blame can be attributed to the petitioner, if the vendee had not informed the village accountant as per S. 128 (1) of the Act and the registering authority had not performed its duty as was incumbent upon it under S. 128 (4) of the Act. In this connection Sri Indrajeet Shah, learned High Court Government Pleader, argued that Cl. (i) to sub sec. (10) to S. 63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, would come into play. This aspect of the matter has to be considered by the Land Tribunal; because It has failed to do so, on the ground that the lands still stood in the name of the petitioner.

(3.) Regarding the contention about the age of Srinath, the second son of the petitioner, it is plain that the petitioner had brought it to the notice of the Tribunal by filing objections on 30 8 1977 by way of an application, a copy of which is at Ext. C, that the date of birth of bis second son Srinath was 9-2-1959, and attached a -true copy of horoscope. A reference is found to this contention in the impugned order. The records maintained by the Tribunal were produced before me by Sri Indrajeet Shah, learned High Court Government Pleader. Though the proceedings sheet does not make mention of the application filed by the petitioner, it is there in the records at page No. 43. It was for the Tribunal to consider the objections of the petitioner. If it did not want to act on the objections, but desired to have further positive evidence, it ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the original horoscope.