SRI MAHADEVAPPA Vs. SADASHIVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER being aggrieved by the order dated 8th November 2005 passed in Appeal No. 117/1996 (REV) on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure-G, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER, claiming to be an ex-serviceman and a disabled person having lost his left leg in the land mine blast, had filed the application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and on the ground that his name was appearing in the cultivator's column of the record of rights and due to ignorance and illiteracy, being a rustic villager, the father of the petitioner did not file Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land measuring 14 acres 21 guntas in Sy. No.63 situate at Sulkhod village, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk, Bijapur District. Accordingly, appropriate proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar, Basavana Bagewadi under Section 58 of the Land Reforms Act and passed an order dated 24th October, 1990 vesting the land in Government on the ground that, the first respondent was cultivating the said land contrary to law as tenant and accordingly, held that, the land was vested in Government under Section 58 of the Land Reforms Act. Be that as it may, petitioner has filed the application for grant of land before second respondent and the second respondent in pursuance of the application filed by petitioner and the report of the Tahsildar dated 14th November, 1990 and also the communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur dated 20th December, 1989 in proceedings No.LRM-CR-196:90-91 has passed the order dated 18th February, 1991 vide Annexure-C, exercising the power under Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act and granted the land in question in favour of the petitioner subject to six conditions. Questioning the correctness of the said order passed by the second respondent dated 18th February 1991 vide Annexure-C, the first respondent herein has filed the Appeal No. 117/1996 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, at Bangalore. The Tribunal, dismissed the said appeal by its order on 8th November 2005 after hearing both sides, and after going through the entire original records and with reference to Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act. Further, the Appellate Tribunal, observed that, the distribution of land should be with notice to the public and 50% of the said land ought to have been granted to SC/ST people. Furthermore, under the Rules 26-AA, 26-B and 27-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, an ex-military personnel cannot be granted to hold more than one unit of land and subject to his income should not be exceeded 2,000/- per annum. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, the land granted in favour of the petitioner is contrary to the aforesaid Rules and allowed the appeal by assigning valid reasons at paragraph 11 of its order and set aside the order passed b the second respondent dated 18th February, 1991 and remitted the matter back to the second respondent for fresh disposal as per law. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 8th November, 2005 passed in Appeal No. 117/1996 and seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.

(3.) THEREFORE, I am of the view that, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly recorded the finding after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material and that, the said order is in consonance with the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Rules, 1974, as referred above. THEREFORE, interference by this Court is not justifiable in view of well-settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments nor I find any good grounds to interfere in the impugned order, by exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the jurisdictional authority to reconsider this ground alone. THEREFORE, interference is not justifiable exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.