M MUDDEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner made an application for the grant of 3 acres of land in what he refers to as Survey No. 288 of Maragowdanahalli village, Mandya Taluk. This application was made for the reason that one acre of his land in survey No. 185 of the same village had been acquired. This application was made in November 1956. The 3rd respondent raised objections to this grant stating that on his application for the grant of 2 acres of land on 18-6-1948, an order had been made by the Government granting 2 acres in Block B out of survey No. 179 of the same village. The contention was that the land granted to him was the same as the one for which the petitioner had made the application in November 1956 under the document a copy of which is marked Ex. B in this case. The Tahsildar rejected this petition on 15-7-1959. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter in order to ascertain the identity of the land which was in question. After the receipt of the report from the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner made an order on 11-7-1962 rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of land. The petitioner's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner was also rejected on 31-10-1962. But on further appeal to the Divisional Commissioner by the petitioner, an order was passed on 21-7-1965 remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. On such remand, the Deputy Commissioner made an order on 14-12-1966 allowing the petitioner's appeal and directing the grant of land to the petitioner. That order is marked Ex. P. The Special Deputy Commissioner directed that the land applied for by the petitioner and kept by him unauthorisedly be granted to him at an upset price of Rs. 200/- an acre. This order is marked Ex. P. The 3rd respondent before us took up the matter in appeal before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in appeal No. 3243 of 1966 and the appeal was allowed by an order dated 13-8-1968. By this Order, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and in the result respondent 2 has now to be evicted from the portion of 2 acres of land which has been granted to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying, a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the grant in favour of the 3rd respondent and also the order of the Mysore revenue Appellate Tribunal which is marked Ex. G.

(2.) The counsel appearing for the petitioners have taken us through the records of the case in detail. The contention of Shri Kadidal Manjappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) was wrong in holding that the land granted to the 3rd respondent is the same as the one for which the petitioner made the application for grant. It was contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner in so far as the settlement of the boundary is concerned is final under Section 142 of the Land Revenue Code. This question as to whether the boundary fixed by the official is final or not does not arise in this case as the question that arises is one relating to the identity of the land which the 3rd respondent claims as the one which has been granted to him for the grant of which the petitioner has made a subsequent application. Shri Manjappa further contended that the question in this case is one of interpretation of the document under which the grant has been made to the petitioner, namely, Ex. B. He contends that in effect the Revenue Appellate Tribunal has substituted Survey No. 288 in place of Survey No. 175, and therefore the order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal is prima facie erroneous. We are unable to accept these contentions. The question that arose for consideration was, what was intended to be granted under Exhibit B. Exhibit-B is quite clear that the Government granted Block B measuring 2 acres out of Survey No. 179. As already mentioned, the question was whether this land was identical with the one for which an application is made for the grant by the petitioner so that it is not the question of interpretation of the Government Order. The question relates to fixation of the identity of the land which is the subject matter of Exhibit B. The Tribunal on appeal has gone into this question relating to the identity of the land in very great detail and has come to a definite conclusion that there can be the least doubt that the portion of the land now in dispute is the one granted to the present appellant, that is, third respondent before us. Further, they state in paragraph 9 of the order as follows:

(3.) It was further contended that the order of the tribunal amounts to a modification of the grant made by Government. As observed already, it is not a modification of the order of Government under Ex. B, that the Tribunal has made, but has merely explained the implications of the said order. Therefore, the contention that there is a modification of the Government Order by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.