G VIRUPAKASHASWAMY Vs. TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The apathy of the State govt. is writ large. There is absolutely no synergy to assist the court by producing records in respect of the land in Sy.No.116 of K.G.Binnamangala which, according to the learned counsel measures about 6 acres 12 guntas from out of which 20 guntas is in question. While petitioner claims to have been registered as a permanent tenant under Section 5 of the Personal and Miscellaneous Inam Abolition Act, 1964, for short 'Act', Respondent No.9 too claims to be a person registered as a permanent tenant under the very same Act, in respect of 30 guntas of land. The Isolation hospital authorities submit that 6 acre 12 guntas of land was acquired for the hospital. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 7 submits that 23 guntas of land in sy.No.116 was re-granted under the Karnataka Village Office Abolition Act, 1961.

(2.) The first question as to whether the land in Sy.No.116 was attached to a village office of Thoti, a minor inam, was required to be considered by the Tahsildar based upon relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the said fact and not on a cursory reading of records or statements of revenue authorities recorded during the year 1995; The second question required the Tahsildar to have addressed himself over whether 20 guntas of land from out of 6 acres 12 guntas in sy.No.116 was in fact subject matter of proceeding culminating in an order dated 26.8.1964 in INA/PR/121(A)/63-64 Annexure-D registering the petitioner as a permanent tenant under section 5 of the Act by or whether the 9th respondent was registered as an occupant of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.116 under Section 5 of the Act, by order dt. 6.3.1960 of the Special Tahsildar for inams Abolition in W.P.4869/2008 DD 5.2.2010. The third question required the Tahsildar, to have ascertained as to whether the entire extent of 6 acre 12 guntas was in fact acquired by the State for and on behalf of the Isolation hospital, or any other acquisition in respect of the said land.

(3.) A bare perusal of the order of the Tahsildar dated 19.11.2004 in HOA.CR.1/2004-05 Annexure-V4 does not disclose application of mind to the aforesaid relevant questions of fact, except for conclusions.