A E DAKSHAYANAMMA Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner has any authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short, the Act) and the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (in short, the Rules) to annul the grant of any land made by Tahsildar in gross disregard of the relevant Rules.

(2.) The relevant undisputed facts giving rise to the question involved may be stated in short: The respondent-Tahsildar by his order dated 15-7-1978 granted 1 acre 2 gunthas of land out of Survey No. 36 of Sanyasikodamogge village and issued Saguvali Chit on 25-7-1978. This land was under the unauthorised cultivation of one Rudrappa. He being a sufficient holder and not being authorised for regularisation in terms of Order No. 105 AGP77 dated 1/09/1977 was evicted from the land immediately thereafter without following the statutory procedure. This order as noticed by the Deputy Commissioner in his order Annexure-A does not speak as to whether the land was regularised under the aforesaid Government Order or had been granted under the provisions of the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner having learnt about the said fact initiated an enquiry, recorded evidence of the Tahsildar and the unauthorised occupant Rudrappa, Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector and the present petitioner. Thereafter, on hearing the concerned parties annulled the grant on the ground that since the petitioner was not under unauthorised cultivation prior to 1977-78, no grant could have been made in her favour pursuant to the Government Order dated 1/09/1977 referred to above. He also found that after eviction of Rudrappa, the land was not brought under the availability list as required under Rule 3 nor the procedure nor the provisions of Rules 4, 5, 6 and 24 were followed. As such, by his order Annexure-B he set aside the order of the Tahsildar granting land to the petitioner and directed for her eviction from the land.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was not in unauthorised possession of the land as on 1-9-1977. Accordingly, agreeing with the reasonings of the Deputy Commissioner, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.