MARASU VENKATARAYAPPA Vs. TAHSILDAR BAGEPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming up for orders is taken up for final hearing by consent of both Counsel. Issue rule.

(2.) The petitioner is the purchaser of certain shanbog service inam lands from one Sri M. Subba Rao, Ex. Shanbog. He has purchased 2 acres and 3 guntas of land in Survey No. 7 of Bathalavarapalli village, Bagepalli Taluk and 4 acres and 16 guntas of land in Survey No. 44 of the same village, under two sale deeds dated 12-8-1968 and 2-9 1970. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of eviction made by the Tahsildar, Bagepalli dated 30th June 1981 ordering eviction under Section 7 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act ('the Act' for short) of the petitioner from the two survey numbers in question holding him to be an unauthorised occupant of the inam lands. Sri Ramachandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the application for regrant by his vendor Sri Subba Rao which was filed on 19-1-1968 before the Tahsildar, Bagepalli, is still pending and no orders are made on the said application. However, it is seen That the purchases are subsequent to the date of the said application for regrant and on that day the application for regrant made by the vendor was pending consideration by the Tahsildar. Therefore, no eviction can be taken against the petitioner-purchaser, if an application for regrant of the very same lands made by the inamdar is pending. The Division Bench of this Court in Amruth S/o. Gulumurthy Swamy v. The Assistant Commissioner. Yadgir Sub-Division, Yadgir (W. P. No. 4791/1979) decided on 16th July 1985 held that proper course to be adopted by the Assistant Commissioner was to dealwith the application for regrant in the first instance. It is obvious that the petitioner having purchased the lands after the Act came into force, the regrant would enure to the benefit of the petitioner in the event of an order of regrant is made in favour of his vendor. In the light of the said decision, the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession until an order is made on the application for regrant.

(3.) The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of eviction Annexure-H is quashed and the petitioner-purchaser is entitled to the protection of his possession until an order of regrant is made in favour of his vendor or is disposed of otherwise. if an order of regrant made in respect of two extents of lands purchased by the petitioner in S. Nos. 7 and 44 of Bathalavarapalli village, Bagepalli Taluk are re- granted in favour of his vendor, the petitioner would be entitled to the regularisation of his title in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of this Court in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1981(1) Kar.L J. 1). The Tahsildar, Bagepalli, is directed to dispose of the application for regrant on merits within two months from the date of the receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the above directions. Sri S V. Jagannath, learned High Court Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from to-day.