SEETHAMMA Vs. SPL TAHSILDAR LAND TRIBUNAL SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who were the tenants of the lands in question and who have been registered as occupants in respect of the same have, in these writ petitions, challenged the correctness of the orders passed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Shimoga. (1st respondent): in LR. SR. RG. Misc. 97/75-76 and LR. SN. RC. Misc, 97(a)/75-76, dated 20-9-1978.

(2.) The order passed in LR. SR. RC. Misc. 97/75-76 relates to the rent payable in respect of the year 1963-64 and 1964-65 with regard to lands Survey No. 125 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas and S. No.126/1 measuring 3 acres 15/guntas both situated at Kumsi, taluk and district Shimoga under which the petitioners have been directed to pay Rs. 844-20p. The order passed in LR. SR NC. Misc. 97(a)/75-76 relates to the rent payable in respect of the year 1970-71 pertaining to the aforesaid lands under which the petitioners have been directed to pay Rs. 422-20p. The contention of the petitioners is that the applications filed by the 2nd respondent for recovery of rent under S- 42 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the 1st respondent in the year 1975-76 in respect of the rent payable for the years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1970-71, were barred by time. According to the petitioners, in view of the provisions contained in S. 42 of the Act, the rent for the years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1970 71 became due at the end of the respective years and the 2nd respondent ought to have filed the applications within a period of one year from the date the rents became due and as the applications were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under S. 42 of the Act, the same were barred by time and therefore, the first respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the same and to pass the orders directing the petitioners to pay the rent to the 2nd respondent. Hence, it was submitted that the impugned orders are null and void and as such, the same should be quashed.

(3.) The 2nd respondent has put in his appearance through an Advocate and has also filed the statement of objections, in which it has been contended that the applications filed by him before the Special Tahsildar were not barred by time and the arrears of rent in question pertained to the period prior to the date of vesting of the lands in question and as such, the contentions raised by the petitioners are not tenable and the writ petitions be dismissed. The contentions raised by the 2nd respondent as contained in paras 2 and 3 of the statement of objections are as follows: