ARJUN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED AGA is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 4. Heard.

(2.) PETITIONERS 1, 2 and 3 claim to be in possession of 3 acres 11 guntas of land in Sy.No.9, whereas petitioners 4, 5 and 6 claim to be in possession of 3 acre 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.10, both situated at Gunadal village, taluk Bijapur. They were granted such lands to the said extent on 10.06.1982 by the State Government. Those lands are owned by respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 had filed application in Form No.11 declaring his total holding. The Land Tribunal by the order dated 31.10.1981 declared an area of 38 acres 37 guntas as excess land out of the holding of respondent No.5. Consequently the said extent of 38 acres 37 guntas has vested with the State and these petitioners were granted land to the aforementioned extent, as mentioned supra. The order of the Land Tribunal dated 31.10.1981 was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.600/1989 c/w W.P.No.5279/1989, which came to be allowed on 03.01.1992 and the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Land Tribunal once again held enquiry and passed order dated 18.05.1999 as per Annexure - H concluding that respondent No.5 has held 3 acres in excess of the ceiling limit. The said order of the Land Tribunal dated 18.05.1999 has attained finality. Thus, it is clear that respondent No.5 has held only 3 acres of land in excess of ceiling limit. Pursuant to the order of the Land Tribunal, the name of respondent No.5 ought to have been entered in the revenue records but Assistant Commissioner decided against the respondent No.5. Ultimately, respondent No.5 questioned the order of the Assistant Commissioner praying for entering his name in the revenue records pursuant to the order of the Land Tribunal. The Deputy Commissioner considering the material on record has rightly concluded that the name of respondent Nos.5(a) to (d) shall be entered in the revenue records pursuant to the order of Land Tribunal.

(3.) THIS Court does not find any error in the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner is justified in entering the name of respondent Nos.5(a) to (d). Since the order of the Land Tribunal dated 18.05.1999 has declared that respondent No.5 is holding only 3 acres of land in excess of ceiling limit, such 3 acres only needs to be vested in the State. The remaining extent of land shall be owned and held by respondent Nos.5 (a) to (d) as per the order of the Land Tribunal. Since the order of the Land Tribunal has attained finality, the natural consequence shall be to enter the name of respondent Nos.5 (a) to (d) who are the legal representatives of original respondent No.5 in the revenue records. It is relevant to note that the petitioners being the grantees have however questioned the order of the Land Tribunal, Bijapur dated 18.05.1999 also before this Court. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the following grounds: