KENCHE GOWDA Vs. REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kenche Gowda, the petitioner, wants, to repair a dilapidated Gokatte situate in S.No.49 of Anamanahalli village, Kanakapur taluk, by raising a Thope in about two acres of land for the use of men and cattle. He applied to the Deputy Commissioner for permission and the Deputy Commr thereupon consulted the local Panchayat and subordinate revenue officials. All of them had no objection for the petitioner being given permission for the philanthropic act. On 9th April, 1962, the Deputy Commr granted the required permission subject to the condition that the grantee should not have any personal interest in such Katte and Thope except collecting usufruct from the trees thereon. The said order was set aside by the Divisional Commr in appeal preferred by respondents 3 to 5 before me. The Divisional Commr directed that the land being gomal land should be preserved as such and the respondents should be evicted therefrom. The petitioner took up the matter in an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Divisional Commr. Against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred CP.156 of 1967 in this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution. While dismissing the petition, this Court observed that if the land in the unauthorised occupation of respondents 3 to 5 was the very land granted to the petitioner for raising Thope and constructing Gokatte, the revenue authorities might seek to evict them, with an opportunity to put forward their contentions. Pursuant to the above observation, the Tahsildar issued notice calling upon respondents 3 to 5 why they should not be evicted from the land. After holding a formal enquiry, on 1.2th Octr, 1972, he made an order of eviction. Against that order, the said respondents preferred revision petitions to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by a common order dt. 30th March, 1973 allowed the petitions setting aside the order of eviction solely on the ground that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to evict the unauthorised occupants from the gomal land which has been vested in the panchayat, and it would be for the Panchayat to take appropriate action. In this petition under Arts.226 and 227, the petitioner challenges the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal.

(2.) The primary question that falls for decision is, who should evict an unauthorised occupant from the land vested in the village Panchayat? Is it the duty of the revenue authorities, or the function of the village Panchayat?

(3.) There appears to be no direct decision on the point. Mr.N.V. Ramachandra Rao, Counsel for respondent 3, relying on the decision of this Court in Nidige Group Village Panchayat v. MRAT, 1967 2 MysLJ 249. urged that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction over the matter, so long as the land remains vested in the Panchayat.