PADMAPPA BHEEMAPPA DODDAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seem to be aggrieved by the notification dated 9-2-1994 (Annexure-L) issued by the respondent-tahsildar in terms of Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short "the act") inviting applications for distribution of lands measuring 37 acres and 15 guntas in survey No. 145 of kulavalli village, bylahongal taluk, belgaum district.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners their applications filed in form 7 claiming occupancy under Section 48-a of the Act, were rejected by the land tribunal in respect of these very lands by order dated 31-3-1982 (Annexure-G) in No. Klr/trb/140 -265+502 on the ground of notification dated 25-4-1955 issued under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 but now those lands are made available for agriculture to other intending applicants.

(3.) IT" appears that kulavalli village in bylahongal taluk including five hamlets i. e. , machi, didalkop, ningapur, sagar and gangyanatti was an inam village granted to one linganagowda bin iranagowda of khodanpur. This inarn was extinguished under the Provisions of the Bombay personal inams abolition Act, 1952, which came into force on 1-8-1953. subsequently partition appeared to have taken place in the family of inamdars which need not be discussed in detail here. In respect of the said lands which as per the report of tahsildar at Annexure-H comprises 9,978. 34 acres out of which 492. 17 acres was cultivable land. It is a matter of record that in respect of the said lands the government of Bombay had issued a notification on 25-4-1955 under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, inter alia prohibiting/regulating the said lands by directing that no portion of the lands can be cultivated either by digging or ploughing without the express permission of the divisional forest officer. There was also prohibition of firing or clearing of vegetation over the land. A division bench of this court, in writ appeal no. 1729 of 1993 disposed off on 17-3-1988 (Annexure-N) on examination of the scope of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the impugned notification issued thereunder, had held that the mere issuance of the notification will not amount to vesting of the land in the government or transfer of ownership but it will have only regulatory or prohibitory effect in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with the notification issued by the state government.