HANUMANTHA DURGA NAIK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 16th May, 1976 passed by the Land Tribunal, Honnavar in No. TNC.SR. 61/230 - Annexure-E rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of occupancy right in the land bearing Survey No. 400/2 measuring 3 acres 17 guntas and 2 guntas phot kharab of Salkod village. The Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that inspite of the service of notice, the petitioner remained absent and also on the basis of the revenue records pertaining to the land in question. The revenue records revealed that the land was in the possession of, and vested in the State Government.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader has secured the records and made them available. Respondents 3 to 5 are represented through a Counsel. They have filed statement of objections. Along with the statement of objections, which is served on the petitioner's Counsel on 23-6-88, a copy of the order dated 10-8-83 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kumta Sub Division, Kumta in No.LRM. OR. 493/82-83 and also a copy of the mutation entry No. 5357 made on 27-8-1983 and the delivery receipt dated 27-8-1983 are produced as annexures R.1 to R.3 respectively. The case of respondents 3 to 5 is that the possession of the land in question was taken over by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) in the year 1953 itself, and a mutation entry No. 3410 dated 20th September, 1953 was also made in this regard. That on taking possession of the land in question, it was leased by the Tahsildar for a period of 10 years to the petitioner and thereafter the land was released in favour of respondents 3 to 5 only in the year 1983. It is submitted on behalf of respondents 3 to 5 that the land did not vest in the State Government under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in asmuch as it was under the management of the State Government since the year 1953 and the management of the land assumed under Section 65 of the Bombay Act resulted in vesting the land in the State Government. Therefore, the question of creating any tenancy in respect of the land belonging to the Government did not arise. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 48A of the Act.

(3.) On the contrary, Sri. Nayak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the statement of objections is filed only on 23-6-1988, along with certain annexures -R.1 to R.3. Therefore, further time may be granted to him to meet the averments contained in the statement of objections and the documents produced along with it. If the documents produced were to be the private documents, there,was no difficulty whatsoever in granting time to the petitioner. The documents produced are the order passed under the Bombay Act and the mutation entry and delivery receipt which had come into existence pursuant to delivery of possession to respondents 3 to 5 by the State Government. In fact, the petitioner ought to have mentioned in the petition about the taking over of the land under Section 65 of the Bombay Act in the year 1953. The petitioner was fully aware of this, because he came on the land only after the management of the land was taken over by the State Government and the land vested in it. Therefore, it is a case, in which the petitioner has suppressed the facts which were fully known to him. Even the order of the Tribunal also made a reference to this. In form No.7 filed by the petitioner, on 9-8- 1974, he has stated that for the last 16 years, he had been cultivating the land as a tenant. That period clearly falls during the period when the land was under the Management of the State Government. Hence, the time sought for by the petitioner is refused.