GALAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Land S. No. 29 of Nagarbhavi village was a Thoti service inam land. All village offices were abolished under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, w.e.f. 1-2-1963. The lands attached to the village offices were resumed by the State and they became liable for the payment of land revenue Sections 5 and 6 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act provided for regrant to the holder and authorised holders respectively. "Holder" and "Authorised Holders" are defined. The limited right given to these persons was to make an application for re-grant. The holders could be granted occupancy rights, on payment of three times the assessment in case of inferior village office and six times of the assessment in case of other village offices. On such regrant, the holder shall be deemed to be occupant or holder of ryotwari patta and shall be liable to pay land revenue to the State Government from the appointed day (i.e. 1-2-1963). In the case of authorised holder, it shall be regranted on payment of six times the full assessment, the other conditions being the same as are applicable to holders. In the instant case the petitioner was regranted these lands on 31-5-1983. On payment of three times or six times, as the case may be, he becomes an occupant or holder of ryotwari land. There is no material to indicate these payments. One important and valuable consequence that follows the payments is that the grantee becomes the occupant or holder of ryotwari land with effect from 1-2-1963 and he becomes liable to pay assessment from that day. By fiction the land, resumed to Government on 1-2-1963, stands vested in the regrantee from that day. This position is enunciated by this Court in Laxmangouda v. State of Karnataka, ILR (Karnataka) 1980 (2) 892 = 1981 (1) KLJ 1 thus :

(2.) This land was sought to be acquired by the BDA for the formation of Nagarbhavi layout. The preliminary Notification dated 15-7-1982, was published in Karnataka Gazette on 12-8-1982 ; the name of Khatedar is shown as "Thoti Nowkari Inam". Since regrant order had not been made on that day, this description is factually correct. Notice to petitioner could not have been sent. To claim such a notice on the assumption that petitioner may get the regrant order, would be speculative. At that stage notices are required to be served on the persons whose names are found in the records, as primarily liable to pay the land revenue or property tax. The authorities cannot embark on the possibilities and speculations and take steps to serve those who may get a regrant order. It is not certain that the applicant would get a regrant order ; he may or may not. The order of Tahsildar or Assistant Commissioner is not final. There is an appeal. Till a finality is reached in the regrant proceedings, no one can assert his rights ; the property continues to vest with the State. If the holder or authorised holder's application for regrant is rejected, he is liable to be summarily evicted under Section 7 of the Act. if the land is a tenanted land, the person claiming tenancy rights will have to resort to Karnataka Land Reforms Act. These being the possible uncertainties, no one can assume that the land will be regranted to him.

(3.) In the counter it is asserted that notice is sent to the Tahsildar on 29-9-1982. I have no reason to disbelieve. Though the land was in possession of the petitioner, the title stood in the State Government. The divesting takes place on the date the regrant is made, though it relates back to 1-2-1963. During the period intervening the appointed day and date of grant, the title vests with the State, which is represented by Tahsildar. Tahsildar holds the property, for and on behalf of true owner. If there is a regrant, notionally he divests himself of this right. The deeming provision in Section 5, which is equally applicable to Section 6, reads thus :