KIRAN KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed an application in Form No.53 seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation and grant of land in respect of 2 acres and 74 cents in Sy.No.9/3AP of Aletti Village, Sullia Taluk. The Committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation considered the application filed by the petitioner and recommended grant of the said land in favour of the petitioner and accordingly saguvali chit was issued in favour of the petitioner on 6/7/2004. However, respondent No.4 who is said to be a relative of the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Sec. 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for cancellation of the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The appeal was filed in the year 2011-12. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 23/8/2013 holding that the total extent of holding of the family of the petitioner was 29 acres and 28 cents. However, by a partition deed dtd. 7/10/2003 the petitioner's father was allotted an extent of 9 acres and 64 cents out of the joint family properties. The Assistant Commissioner therefore held that since the petitioner's family was holding more than 4.99 acres, the land could not have been granted in favour of the petitioner in terms of Rule 108-F(iv) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) and accordingly proceeded to cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) Aggrieved the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner by preferring an appeal under Sec. 50 of the Act. Before the Deputy Commissioner it was argued that the petitioner was not eligible for making an application seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation, since three years prior to the cut off date prescribed under the provision, the petitioner was a minor and he could not claim that he was in authorized and bona fide cultivation personally and therefore, since the grant was in contravention of the provisions of law, the grant made in favour of the petitioner was required to be cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner proceeded to uphold the said contention and held that the appellant was only about 6 years as on 14/4/1987 i.e., three years prior to the cut off date and the minimum requirement of a person holding such a land for a period of three years prior to the cut off date to be eligible for seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation. Though a compromise memo was sought to be filed by the parties, the Deputy Commissioner rejected such a compromise petition and proceed to uphold the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 94-A read with Rule 108-F of the Rules, there is no prohibition in law for a minor to hold the land. It is submitted that a plain reading of the provisions contained in Rule 108-F only prescribes that as on the date of making the application the person has to be a major.