REVANNA SIDDAPPA HADRI Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER INDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions the petitioners who are owners of the lands mentioned in the impugned orders have challenged the order passed by the 1st respondent at Ext.'C' and confirmed by the 2nd respondent by his order at Exhibit 'B' determining the ceiling area of the lands. W.P.No.10622/1976 is filed by the son of the petitioner in W.P.No. 10627/76. The son and the father will be hereinafter called as 1st and and the 2nd petitioners. Their case is that they are governed by the Hindu Law, and at a partition made by the 2nd petitioner which right he could exercise under the Hindu Law, the 1st petitioner got 64.4 acres and the 2nd petitioner got 99 acres, and 38 acres out of it were under a lease to the 4th petitioner who is the married daughter of the 2nd petitioner. Respondents 5, 6 and 7 are the daughters of the 2nd petitioner.

(2.) The mutation entry No.6110 was made pursuant to the information accorded in respect of the partition and the village records were corrected accordingly. The khata extracts show that the 1st petitionerheld 3 lands viz., survey No.437, 279 and 393 measuring in all 64 acres 4 guntas and the 2nd petitioner got survey Nos. 620, 437, 279 and 607 of Tamba village in Indi Taluk. Survey No.627 measuring 38.29 acres remained with the 4th respondent as a tenant and the said survey number is the subject matter of tenancy proceedings on an application filed by the 4th respondent for grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter called the 'Act') .

(3.) The 2nd petitioner filed the declaration as required u Sec.66 of the Act. It was referred to the Revenue Inspector for Land Reforms for enquiry and report and after submission of the report, the Special Tahsildar for Land Reforms, Indi, passed the impugned order marked at Exhibit 'B. According to his order, the total extent of the area of the land is 164.02 acres. The 2nd respondent held that the 2nd petitioner is entitiled to retain the land to the extent of 12 units i.e., 10 units for five members and for extra one member 2 units, in all a total of 64.32 acres and directed the declarant to surrender the surplus land to an extent of 99.10 acres to Government. After directing the 2nd petitioner to indicate the land that he would like to surrender within 30 days, the declarant should express his choice of survey numbers and after such expression of the choice the 2nd respondent accepted the surrender, Aggrieved by this order, the 1st petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent who dismissed the appeal at Exhibit 'C' and confirmed the order parsed by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent was of the view that the transfer made in favour of the 1st petitioner is against law, since the 1st petitioner is a minor and therefore he took the total extent of land as belonging to the family of the 2nd petitioner and further was of the view that the 4th respondent's tenancy was an insertion at a subsequent date and that the entire extent of land was owned by the family of the 2nd petitioner and, therefore, rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner for separately fixing the ceiling limits in respect of the lands which he got at a partition of the family.