BHEEMANA GOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and of learned high court government pleader Sri m. Siddagangaiah for respondent are heard.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the lands in question in sy. Nos. 31/1, 31/2 and 31/3 situate at nagaral done, sindgi taluk of bijapur district were the service inam lands attached to the village office of mulki and police patilki. The ancestors of petitioners were the holders of the said village office. It is the case of the petitioners and they were minors when the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('the act' for short) came into force. After the death of their respective fathers and after they attained their majority both petitioners had given their joint application dated 15-9-1997 under Section 5 of the act before respondent 3-deputy commissioner, praying to regrant the said lands to them and further stating at para 4 therein that respondent 2-tahsildar refused to accept the requisite occupancy price when they wanted to credit the same. The copy of that application is at Annexure-F. On their said application the impugned order at Annexure-G bearing No. Kom. V. VTN:cr:89 of 1997-98, dated 8-10-1997 was passed by the deputy commissioner directing his office to file the application on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make their application together with occupancy price within the prescribed time i. e. , on or before 30-6-1992.

(3.) MR. Ashok r. Kalyanashetty, representing the learned counsel for petitioners rightly contended that the impugned order of respondent 3 is vitiated by reason of he not following the mandatory requirement of law contained in Rule 4 (2) of the Karnataka village offices abolition rules, 1962 ('the rules' for short) and on his failure to exercise his discretion under proviso to Rule 5 (l) (b) in the matter of condoning the delay caused if any in making of the application for re-grant of the service inam lands.