YASHWANT BHOOPAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are filed by the declarants who had been issued with notices as at annexures-B to E under Section 122-A of the Land Reforms Act. The petitioners have challenged the said notices in these writ petitions.

(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. T. Rayareddy, the learned High Court government Pleader, Sri S. S. Guttal, appearing for respondent 1-State and respondent 2-Land tribunal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rayareddy while taking me through backdrop of the case submitted that the impugned notices challenged by the petitioners is on the ground that respondent 2, Tribunal has got no power to review its own order passed earlier under Section 67 of the Land Reforms Act as long as it had not made out a case under Section 122-A of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that in issuing the impugned notices, the Tribunal had not notified therein as to what prompted the Tribunal to cause a issuance of the same, for the said notices are silent as to what was the reason for doing the same. While taking me through the provision in Section 122-A of the Land Reforms Act, Sri Rayareddy submitted that the Tribunal gets to review the order passed under Section 67 of the Act, if it was satisfied that the earlier order passed by the Tribunal were obtained by the petitioner by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete declaration. He further submitted that the impugned notices are devoid of those particulars and that the same therefore cannot sustain. Hence, he prayed that the impugned notices be quashed by allowing these writ petitions. In support of that argument, Sri Rayareddy had also cited before me unreported decision in Writ Petition No. 31953 of 1982 and connected with eleven other writ petitions, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Competent Authority if that order passed was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts or by furnishing false, incorrect or incomplete declaration. In the above decision, the Division Bench of this Court held as under: "it is clear from a reading of this section, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to review the previous order passed by the Competent Authority if the order passed by the Competent Authority had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts or by furnishing false or incorrect or incomplete declaration. It is not in dispute that the authority competent to decide the ceiling limit was the Tahsildar. He by different orders determined the ceiling limits of the petitioners and also pointed out the surplus holdings of the petitioners in certain cases, which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, were also surrendered. But the Land tribunal, issued notices to the petitioners to reopen the case and review the order passed with regard to the ceiling limit under Section 122-A of the Act. We carefully read the notices issued to the petitioners. The notices did not contain any one of the ingredients which are to be satisfied under Section 122-A of the Act. In the first part of the notices it is stated that the petitioners had not shown certain survey numbers which were not declared in Form 7. The submission is that such survey numbers do not belong to the ownership of the petitioners and the rest of the portion of these notices do not indicate say one of the ingredients required under Section 122-A of the act for reopening the and reviewing the order passed in relation to the fixing of the ceiling limit. Therefore, the notices issued to the petitioners are bad in the eye of law and they are not in conformity with the provisions of Section 122-A of the Act. They are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the notices issued to the petitioner are quashed. The authorities are at liberty to take such action as they deem fit in accordance with law".