HANUMANTHAPPA GONAPPA TALWAR Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question of law arises for consideration in this writ petition. The question is whether the land vests with the government under section 44 of the Karnataka land reforms act of 1974 even though the land tribunal declares such land as not a tenanted land and who is the authority to effect the entries in the rtc in such an event.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the owner of land measuring 7 acres 9 guntas in survey No. 18/2 of teredahalli village, haveri taluk, dharwad district. The third respondent herein claimed as tenants and filed form No. 7 to the land tribunal, haveri. however, during the course of enquiry before the land tribunal, certain disclosures were made to the effect that the third respondent surrendered the land on his own and that the owner has been cultivating the said land for the last 10 to 12 years. acting upon this statement of the landlord and the person who claimed tenancy, the tribunal, haveri chose to reject the application of the third respondent. There was no appeal or any proceeding before this court challenging the correctness of the said order. Twenty one years thereafter in the year 1993, the petitioner made an application before the tahsildar, haveri to change the entries in the pahani and to substitute his name deleting the name of the third respondent. The tahsildar has issued an endorsement as in Annexure-D stating that he cannot pass any order in the matter in the light of the direction issued by the deputy commissioner, dharwad in his office circular rts cr 29/82-83, dated 13-5-1986, a xerox copy of which is marked as Annexure-E.

(3.) IT appears that the divisional commissioner called for a meeting of the revenue officers including the deputy commissioner and took a decision directing the tahsildar not to effect any change in the pahanis in accordance with the orders of the tribunal in such cases. It may be stated at once in this case that the present case on hand clearly falls under the category mentioned under the circular Annexure-E. There is no difficulty for the tahsildar to pass suitable orders having regard to the order of the tribunal itself which has rejected form No. 7 filed by the third respondent. It is unnecessary for this court to go into the legality of the decision taken by the divisional commissioner as in Annexure-E. Such a decision cannot substitute a statute or the Provisions therein. In fact, Annexure-E has no validity in law nor, can it be construed having issued under any Rule or law under the said act.