BAPU MALLU KHOT Vs. DEPUTY COMMR BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lands bearing S.Nos.321/2, 321 3 and some other lands which were watan lands were re-granted to the petitioner by the competent authority under S.5 of the Karnataka Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). Thereafter he made an application before the Asst Commr, Chikodi, under S.7 of the Act to evict respondents 3 to 5 who according to the petitioner were in unauthorised possession of the lands. The case of respondents 3 to 5 was that they were cultivating the lands as tenants. The Asst Commr, therefore, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that parsons who were holding the watan lands under valid leases would not be affected by any order of re-grant under Section 5.

(2.) The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Asst Commr before the Deputy Commr. The Deputy Commr dismissed the appeal holding that no appeal lay to him from the order of the- Asst Commr who was discharging the duties of a Deputy Commr while passing the order under appeal. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) It is seen from S.7 of the Act that it authorise the Deputy Commr to evict a person in unauthorised possession of a land which stands resumed to Govt under S.4 of the Act and to dispose of the land in favour of the unauthorised holder if he satisfied the conditions mentioned in the said section. S.7 does not apply to a case where the land has already been regranted in favour of the holder of an office. If a person in whose favour the land is re-granted finds that a third party is in unauthorised occupation of the land in question, it is open to him to approach the Civil Court to pass a decree for possession against the trespasser. He cannot request the Deputy Commr under S.7 of the Act to evict the trespasser and to put him in possession of the land, S.8 of the Act also does not confer on the person in whose favour the land is re-granted, the right to approach the Deputy Commr to evict a third party. S.8 only declares the rights of persons who are holding lands under valid leases. The application before the Asst Commr made by the petitioner was therefore a misconceived one.