M RAMAKRISHNA BHAT Vs. TAHSILDAR PUTTUR DAKSHINA KANNADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19-3-1982 issued by the Tahsildar, puttur and the order dated 25-10-1990 passed by the second respondent, the Revenue Inspector and the order dated 7-7-1990 passed by the Village Accountant. The petitioner in this writ petition has raised an important question of law as to whether the Wargdar who is enjoying kumki land appertaining to the Wargland could be said to be an unauthorised occupier of the said land and can fine be imposed upon him under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the Warg lands sy. Nos. 258, 258/5-B, 257/2, 267/3, 267/4-A, 267/6-A, 268/b, 268/4-A3 and 270/1-A3 of Nidpalli Village, Puttur Taluk. For the above Warglands, AW lands bearing Sy. Nos. 268/4-A2 and 270/1-A2 form kumki lands. It is stated that the petitioner has been making use of the said kumki lands for the cultivation of his warg land and according to the petitioner, the warg lands have been granted to him several years back and in view of the ancientness of the grant, it is called Kadim Warg land and therefore, kadim Wargdars were entitled for kumki rights. The petitioner has also cited old Madras standing orders regarding enjoyment of the kumki lands.

(3.) IT is stated by the petitioner that he has planted coconut and cashew plants in the said land and has also enclosed the said land by means offence in order to prevent catties straying into the land. That on 19-3-1982, the petitioner was issued an eviction notice on the ground that since the lands belong to the Government, double assessment has been levied as penalty and since the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of the land because of his annual income being more than Rs. 2,000/-, the petitioner should handover possession of the kumki lands within 15 days. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, which was dismissed and against the said order he approached the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal by an order dated 3-3-1987 and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for considering the matter afresh.