VINAYAKA SHIVRAO MANTRT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOURTH respondent in the writ petition, the son of the petitioner, appears to have made an application against his father, for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 11 acres and 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 87 of Kannadgal village, before the Land Tribunal. Ultimately both parties remained absent before the Tribunal. The Land Tribunal made an order as per Ext. A rejecting the application of the 4th respondent for grant of occupancy rights. Thereafter, the Tahsildar has taken Action under S. 58 of the Kar. Land Reforms Act, 1961, on the ground that there is an illegal tenancy created and that therefore the land has to be forfeited to the Government. The said order has been affirmed on appeal by the Asst. Commissioner. A bare reading of the order of the Land Tribunal indicates that it came to the conclusion that in fact no lease had come into existence between the parties. It is only on the bringing into existence of an illegal lease that the Tahsildar could take action under S. 58 of the Kar. Land Reforms Act, 1961. At best, all that can be said is that a false case was put forward by the 4th respondent claiming tenancy against his own father and the Land Tribunal came to the conclusion that the case put forward by him is false. S. 58 of the Kar. Land Reforms Act, 1961, does not get attracted merely because parties put forward false claims. The said provision gets attracted only when the land was in fact leased but contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Act. But in case where no lease had in fact come into existence and parties put forward false claims, the fact that such false claims were put forward does not entitle the Tahsildar to invoke the provisions of S. 58 of the aforesaid Act and to forfeit the land to the Government. Hence, the impugned orders of the Tahsildar and the Asst. Commissioner are hereby quashed. No costs.