K NABASAPPA Vs. TAHASILDAR HONNALI TALUK HONNALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed assailing the judgment of the learned Single judge dismissing the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner-appellant has filed an application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of 1 acre of land which was in his possession. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that petitioner's family was granted land already. Against that, appeal was filed. Appellate Authority affirmed the same. The orders are challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Against that present appeal is filed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for appellant contended that appellant is in possession of 1 acre of land as unauthorised occupant and under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act his application has to be considered. It is contended that the land was granted to his family long back, therefore the same cannot be a bar for granting this land.

(3.) TO implement the scheme envisaged under Directive Principles of state Policy, the State has brought agrarian legislations beginning from abolition of Jahagirs and estates to Land Ceiling Act and a number of other legislations with an intent that there must be a distribution of the lands to the poor sections of the society. In pursuance of the said enactments, the land was taken over by the State and distributed to the poor. Similarly, the Mysore Land Grant Rules and provisions in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are enacted with the purpose of granting land to the landless poor. The aim of the enactments or rules is that the 'have nots' may be provided some means to survive though not in equal status with 'haves'.