SANJIVI ALIAS LAXMI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Chandrakantaraj Urs, learned High Court Govt Advocate prayed for an adjournment of this appeal and the connected appeal on the ground that he has not received instructions from the Govt. On 9-6-1975, he was told to get ready for hearing within two weeks as the question raised in his appeal is a pure question of law and thq matter is one of public importance concerning a larger number of cases now pending before the Tribunals constituted under the Karnatkaa Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). This Court has the power of guperintendence by virtue of Art.227 of the Constn, over all Tribunals constituted under the Act. If the procedure followed by the Tribunals which has been challenged before us, is not corrected at the earliest opportunity, it may drive thousands of pepple to approach this Court for relief under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constn. Hence we refused the prayer for adjournment of the hearing of this appeal and the connected appeal. This appeal is directed against the order of Jagannatha Shetty, J. dt. 7th April, 1975, made in WP.1583 of 1975 by which the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition at the preliminary hearing stage..

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions urged on either side, it is necessary to briefly set out the relevant facts: The appellant Sanjivi alias Laxmi Amma is the! widow of one Subbayya Prabhu. The third respondent Appanna Sheregare claims that he is a tenant in respect of about 24 acres of agricultural lands in Sullia taluk in the Dist of S.Kanara. On coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended by Act I of 1974, the third respondent under S.45 of the Act made an application before the Land Tribunal fox registering him as an occupant of the said lands, particulars of which were given in his application made to the Tribunal On receipt of the said application, the) Tribunal (2nd respondent) issued a notices to the appellant in Form 9 read with Rule 19(1) and Sec.48A(2) of the Act. We may mention that the notice states that it is under Rule 9(11) which is clearly an error. The relevant Rule is Rule 19(1). The notice reads thus : <FRM>45645.htm</FRM> On service of the said notice on the appellant, she preferred WP.1583 of 1975 praying that the notice d|.3-3-1975 prqduced as Ext'A' and all proceedings pursuant thereto be quashed.

(3.) WP.1583 of 1975 came up for preliminary hearing before Jaga- nnatha Shetty, J. and it was urged by the Counsel for the writ petitioner that the notice issued by the Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the lands mentioned in ,the Schedule have vested in the State Govt under S.44(l) of the Act and what the Tribunal has to determine is the person entitled to be registered as an occupant of the said lands under S.45. The oase, of the appellant is that the third respondent is not cultivating the lands; on the other hand, the lands are in the personal cultivation of the appellant and her sons who are members of a joint Hindu family. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ partition on the ground that it is open to the appellant to appear before the Tribunal and contend that the lands have not vested in the State Govt and the application made by the third respondent was not maintainable and therefore it is too premature to consider the contentions of the petitioner Jagannatha Shetty, J. observed in the course of this order that the impugned notice assumes that the lands in respept of which the third respondent has made the application have vested in the State Govt under S.44(l) of the Act. The learned Judge also observed that such a conclusion could not be the conclusion of the Tribunal as no enquiry had been held by the Tribunal. It. is necessary to set qut the material portion of the order of Jagannatha Sheitty, J. It reads : It has to he stated that respondent 3 has already filed an application under S. 45 of the Act before the Tribunal that he should be registered as an occupant of the lands. On that application, the Tribunal has issued the notice, relevant portion of which I have set out earlier.It is true that the notice reads that the lands in respect of which respondent 3 has made a claim are vested in the State Govt under S.44(l) of the Act. But that cannot be the conclusion of the Tribunal. No enquiry has been done hither to by the Tribunal. It is open to the petitoner to appear before the Tribunal and contend that the lands are not vested in thq State Govt and the application made by respondent 3 was not maintainable. It is too premature to consider the the contention of the petitioner.