SAKRAWWA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL BADAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ appeal filed by the appellant arises out of the order dated 23rd February 2007 passed in W.P.No.21396/2005.

(2.) THE petitioner-appellant, claiming to be the owner of an agricultural land measuring 5 acres in Sy.No.103 of Danakasirur village, Badami Taluk, assailing the correctness of the order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the Tahasildar, Badami, Taluk, Bagalkot District-2nd respondent herein on a representation made by one Sri. Yallappa Hanamappa Mudiyanagudi on behalf of fourth respondent, had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.21396/2005. THE 2nd respondent had issued the said communication directing the Circle Inspector of Police, Badami, to give protection to the 4th respondent, when the matter was pending adjudication before the Land Tribunal, Badami, on the ground that, the Land Tribunal has not been constituted and the Tribunal is not in a position to take up the matter for consideration of the representation filed by 4th respondent seeking protection, stating that, the current revenue records show the name of the 4th respondent to be in possession of the land in question.

(3.) AFTER giving anxious hearing to the learned counsel appearing for appellant, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents-1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent and after careful perusal of the order impugned, it emerges that, on a representation given by the 4th respondent seeking police protection, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned communication vide Annexure-D dated 11.8.2005 directing the Circle Inspector of Police, Badami to give protection to the 4th respondent, on the ground that, her name finds in the record of rights in respect of the land in question as referred above and since the Land Tribunal is not functioning as on the date of considering the said application. The 2nd respondent has committed a grave error and mis-carriage of justice in issuing a direction and the same is one without jurisdiction. When the matter is seized before the Land Tribunal, the aggrieved party has got every right to file an application under section 48-C of the Land Reforms Act before the Competent authority and instead of that, he has filed an application before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is not the competent authority to consider the application filed by 4th respondent and to issue the impugned communication giving directions to the police authority to give protection. Nor there is any provision to transfer the power to the 2nd respondent and therefore, the impugned communication issued by 2nd respondent is one without jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained. Further, it is significant to note that, the learned Single Judge has observed that, even the record of rights unfortunately does not show the name of the petitioner-appellant all along, although she claims to have purchased the land in the year 1963-64 and it appears that, the said observation is made without reference to the record of rights produced by the petitioner-appellant herein vide Annexure-A1 to A3, wherein, in cultivators Column i.e. Col. No.12(2) the name of the appellant has been notified and the Mode of cultivation is shown as 1 which indicates that the appellant is in possession of the land in question and cultivating the same. Further the learned Single Judge has observed that, he does not find any ground to interfere with such a direction in writ jurisdiction and it is not the law that this Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction in respect of each and every grievance of the writ petitioner appellant. The said reasoning given by the learned Single Judge cannot be appreciated and it is not in consonance with the case on hand as referred above. Further, it is not in dispute that, the Land Tribunal has not functioning as on the date of considering the application filed by 4th respondent and the application entertained and directions issued by way of impugned communication by the 2nd respondent is one without jurisdiction. When such being the case, the learned Single Judge ought to have issued appropriate directions to the competent authority. In view of not doing such exercise by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the observations made in the impugned order are liable to be quashed.