HANUMAKKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where by the petitioner has prayed for grant and issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondent No. 2 Assistant Commissioner to expeditiously dispose of the petitioner's application dated 7-12-1994 made under the provisions of the Karnataka SC and ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 for redemption of land in question in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner claims herself to be the legal representative of original grantee, in accordance with law. The writ has been filed on 28-12-1994. There is no grievance at present that the opposite parties have not co-operated in the expeditious disposal of application. If there would have been any such thing, or such grievance the petitioner would have asserted against the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar. That as the application Annexure C has itself been moved under the SC and ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, on 7-12-1994 and within a short span of two weeks the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus for expeditious disposal of his claim. The present petition appears prima facie to be misconceived. That in the writ petition the reason for moving this writ petition has been indicated by the petitioner in the petition to the effect that eucalyptus trees had been planted by her husband on the entire land in dispute and the said trees are now standing. That respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are trying to cut the standing trees which according to the petitioner had been planted by the petitioner's husband. It has so been contended by petitioner's husband. It has so been contended by petitioner's counsel as well. On behalf of opposite parties, it has been contended by learned Government pleader Sri H.H. Kaladgi, that petitioner has got alternative remedy by approaching the respondent No. 2 and by moving application for Interim relief, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) I have applied my mind to the contention of the learned counsel. In my opinion the present writ petition is premature since not even a month has elapsed from the date of moving of the application under the Act of 1978 by the petitioner before respondent No. 2. The proceedings have to be conducted according to the law by the Assistant Commissioner and for the present, in my opinion, no cause of action has occurred to the petitioner for moving this writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus as prayed for. That as regards petitioner's apprehension that respondents 6 and 7 may cut down the trees on the land which were planted by her husband, the petitioner should have moved an application for interim relief in the nature of temporary injunction restraining the opposite party from cutting the trees. It is well settled principle of law as laid by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the case of Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, as well as in later decision as held, to the effect that interim relief can be granted as an ancillary relief to the main relief as the Assistant Commissioner is the Revenue Court as the Revenue Authorities constituted under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act have declared to be revenue court. That as such under Section 25 of the Act which declares that inherent powers shall remain vested in the Revenue Authority. The inherent power to pass such orders as are necessary in the interest of justice do stand vested in Assistant Commissioner. Section 24 of the Land Revenue Act, clearly declares that Revenue officers with exception to Tahsildar or lower to Tahsildar to be in the Revenue Courts and Section 25 declares that inherent powers are vested in the Revenue Courts to pass orders necessary in the interest of justice and prevent the abuse of the process. Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act reads as under: