MEENAKSHAMMA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL RAICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Sec.66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'The 1961 Act'), respondent No.2 filed a declaration in Form 11 before the Land Tribunal, Raichur, inter alia indicating the extent of lands owned by him and the persons in'.erested in the said lands. In Form 11 Annexure-F -under the heading "particulars of land included in Annexrure-A which have been disposed of on or after 18-11-1961" of the said declaration, respondent No.2 stated that an extent of 19 acres 6 guntas and 7 acres 10 guntas in S.Nos.87|2 and 30 of Bevinabenchi and Srinivasapur Villages respectively had been disposed of or delivered to the petitioner at the time of her marriage by his father in 1963 by way of a gill. In the check report submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar, he did not examine the above assertion of the land-holder except stating that the said lands s'.and in the name of respondent No.2. On examining respondent No.2 and conducting an enquiry and without notice to the petitioner, the Land Tribunal by its order No.LRM/ 130176-77 dated 11-4.1977 (Exhibit 'C') declared that respondent No.2 was entitled to retain an extent of 54 acres and there was a surplus of 22 acres 25 guntas in S.No.20/3 of Thimmapur village, S.No.30 of Shrinivasapur village and S.No.99 of Bevinbenchi village and therefore directed its surrender to the Government. In this writ petition, the petitioner who claims to be the owner or has an interest in S.No.30 Srinivaspur village has challenged the said order of the Land Tribunal in so far as it relates to that S-No.30 to an extent of 7 acres 10 guntas only.

(2.) Shri B.S.Raikote, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the order of the Land Tribunal in so far as it relates to SNo.30 the ownership of which has vested in the petitioner without notice and with out providing an opportunity of hearing to her is violative of the principles of natural justice and is vitiated,

(3.) From the records of the Land Tribunal, it is seen that no notice of the declaration had been issued to the petitioner before passing an order in respect of S.No.30 the ownership of which is claimed by her. Shri C.Shivappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not dispute the above assertion of the petitioner. But he contended that the petitioner was not the owner of S.No.30 and therefore her name is not found in the revenue records for which reason she was not entitled for a notice or an opportunity of hearing. In this writ petition I cannot decide whether the petitioner is the owner of S.No.30 or not and that is a master for the Land Tribunal to decide.