SANGAPPA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL BIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition arising under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', raises an important question of law touching the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal constituted under the Act. The second respondent Srinivas Rao Kasimpurkar is a land-holder in Bidar Taluk. The petitioner Sangappa made an application in form No.7 under S.48-A of the Act for grant of occupancy right over an area of 18 acres 181/2 guntas in Sy.No.77 of Kasimpur village in Bidar Taluk belonging to the second respondent land-holder on 31-12-1974. On the said application having been filed before the Land Tribunal, Bidar Taluk, notices were issued in form No. 9 to the petitioner and the second respondent's wife Susheela Bai. In his application, the petitioner had stated that he has been cultivating the land as tenant since the year 1958. The notice issued in form No.9 reads thus:

(2.) On the first date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal, both parties were absent and hence fresh notices were issued and a fresh date was fixed for hearing. On the said date, the petitioner and the second respondent appeared before the Tribunal and made their statements. The second respondent conceded that the petitioner has been cultivating a moiety of the land in Sy.No.77 since 1963. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to a further date of hearing and finally on 6-11-1975, the Tribunal passed the impugned order holding that the land claimed by the petitioner was not a tenanted land and the application is a collusive one apparently got up in order to evade the ceiling provisions of the Act as the land-holder Srinivasa Rao owns lands in excess of the ceiling limit. The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner and directed the Tahsildar, who is the Secretary of the Tribunal, to take action under S.66 of the Act to vest the land in Government. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution. The second respondent does not oppose this writ petition. The State has entered appearance through Shri H.N.Narayan, learned High Court Government Pleader. The first argument urged by Shri Govindaraju appearing for Shri M.M.Jagirdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Tribunal has travelled outside its jurisdiction when it held that the land has vested in the State Government under Chapter IV of the Act and it had no jurisdiction to direct the Tahsildar to take action under S.66 of the Act. The second ground urged by the learned Counsel is that the parties were given no opportunity to meet the new case made out by the Tribunal, viz., that the application is a collusive one and the land is not a tenanted land.

(3.) In our opinion, both the grounds urged by the learned Counsel are well-founded and the order of the Tribunal is clearly vitiated on both grounds. We have set out in the earlier part of this order- the notice issued to the parties in form No.9. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal in proceedings under Chapter III of the Act is restricted to applicationsfor grant of occupancy rights in respect of tenanted lands vesting in the State Government on 1-3-1974. The provisions of S.44 and other sections an Chapter III of the Act make this, position abundantly clear. Chapter III is not concerned with lands under personal cultivation ol the land-holders, irrespective of the fact that the lands so possessed anacultivated are in excess of the ceiling limit fixed by the Act. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to initiate proceedings under Chapter III arises on an application being made by a person claiming to be the tenant of a land or lands alleged to have vested in the State Government on 1-3-1974 under S.44 of ithe Act. It has no jurisdiction to take any proceedings under Chapter III in respect of lands not vested in the State Government on 1-3-1974 under S.44(1) of the Act. The notice in form No.9 issued to the parties stated that "whereas the land has vested in the State Government under S.44(1) of the Act", the interested parties are required to appear before the Tribunal with documentary evidence to decide the issue of grant of occupancy right applied for. The notice in, form No.9 has been prescribed under the Rules made under the Act. The rules do not provide for issue of a notice either to the person claiming to be the tenant or to the land-holder to meet the case of the State that the alleged tenancy is a collusive one and that the land is actually under the personal cultivation of the land-holder and the application for grant of occupancy right has been got up in order to defeat the ceiling provisions of the Act under Chapter IV. When a no'.ice in form No.9 is issued pursuant to proceedings taken under S.48A of the Act, the case which the land-holder has to meet is whether the land in question is a 'tenanted land'.