GOWRI Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSORE DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek quashing of the Order dated 24-3-1992 (annexure-a) passed by, the respondent-divisional commissioner under Section 118-a of the Karnataka land reforms act, 1961 (in short the 'act'), whereunder the respondent-divisional commissioner has held that instead of the 1st petitioner herein, respondents 4 to 9 are entitled to receive compensation payable under Section 47 of the ACT in respect of the properties owned by one Mr. Muguli ramakrishna bhat, since deceased.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the said ramakrishna bhat was in possession of certain immoveable properties in karopadi village of bantwal taluk. He had no issues of his own. According to the petitioners, late ramakrishna bhat had taken the 2nd petitioner in adoption. The 3rd and 1st petitioners are his daughter-in-law and minor granddaughter respectively. Admittedly, the properties in respect of which compensation was payable were tenanted properties and on applications being filed by the tenants, occupancy was granted to them under Section 48-a of the act. In the proceedings initiated under Section 48-b of the ACT for determining compensation, late ramakrishna bhat had written a letter dated 18-6-1979 claiming that he was still in enjoyment of the properties in question and subsequently he executed a will dated 25-9-1982 in favour of the 1st petitioner bequeathing the right to receive compensation amount in her favour. On the basis of the said document, the tahsildar, under his Order dated 23-6-1987 (annexure-b), after determining the amount of compensation payable at Rs. 13,381/- ordered for payment thereof in favour of the 1st petitioner through her mother saraswathi amma (petitioner 2 ).

(3.) THE aforesaid Order of the tahsildar at Annexure-B was challenged by respondents 4 to 9 before the respondent assistant commissioner in an appeal filed under Section 118 (2-b) of the act. The ground taken was that late ramakrishna bhat had executed a registered settlement deed on 6-6-1964 and subsequently registered release deed dated 19-12-1975 (annexures-rl and r2 to the statement of objections) in favour of one late m. Narayana bhat and his children being respondents 4 to 9. But, the learned assistant commissioner did not feel persuaded by the pleas of the respondents/appellants and dismissed the appeal by his Order dated 28-3-1989 (annexure-c ). Against the aforesaid Order of the assistant commissioner at annexure-c, respondent 4 to 9 went in revision before the divisional commissioner, who passed the impugned Order at annexure-a. The divisional commissioner, on weighing the rival contentions and the documents placed before him, concluded that keeping in view the registered deeds of settlement and release in favour of late narayana bhat and his children respondents 4 to 9, they were the rightful owners of the property in question and are entitled to receive the compensation.