SIIANKRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of india. By this petition the petitioners have sought quashing of the endorsement dated 23-5-1994 in No. Klr:cr:20:1994-95 passed by the tahsildar, kalghatgi district, dharwad, as well as the petitioners have further prayed for writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature being issued to respondent to consider the application filed in form No. 7 by the father of the petitioners in respect of the land in dispute. They have prayed for such other relief being granted or being issued as this Hon'ble court deems fit.

(2.) the facts of the case in brief are that after coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, according to the petitioners' case, as contained in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, petitioners' father moved an application in form No. 7 on 10-8-1974 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in dispute viz., plot nos. 150, 154, 8 and 9 village hullambi. According to the petitioners case the brother of the petitioners' father had also moved an application claiming occupancy rights in remaining portion of the land. According to the petitioners case no enquiry was conducted by the tribunal nor any date of hearing was fixed and the petitioners did not come to know the progress of the case before the land tribunal. The petitioners case is that they made enquiries from the office of the land tribunal and was informed by the secretary of the tribunal at times that they (petitioners) will be served with notice for hearing by the tribunal and so the petitioners kept on waiting. According to the petitioners case they were advised not to approach this court unless any order is passed on the application of the petitioners father filed in form No. 7. The petitioners case is that ultimately an endorsement was issued to the petitioners on 23-5-1994. The copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 'f' to the writ petition. The original endorsement is in kannada. The said endorsement has been translated by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned high court government pleader before me and i had taken note of that english translation which reads as under:

(3.) Sri V.T. Raya Reddi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in accordance with the division bench decision of this court the tahsildar has no power to record a finding that no application in form no.7 had been filed by the' petitioners father. The learned counsel submitted that an application under Section 48-a whether had been filed or not if a party has asserted it had been filed the question has got to be decided by the tribunal which is competent to deal with the application and to dispose it of. The tahsildar is merely a secretary and he is not a tribunal. Therefore this endorsement is illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners had made a reference to the following decisions: viz., (1) venkappa shettigar v the special tahsildar & others; (2) channabasappa v state of karnataka and others.