M SHIVAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the notices/eviction order dated 20!7il977 issued by the Tahsildar, Arkalgud (Ext. C, C-1 to C 16) ,.

(2.) The petitioners claim to be the owners, occupiers and cultivators of certain agricultural lands detailed in their respective petitions. Their case is that they have purchased the lands from the previo/us owners for valuable consideration and they are in their lawful occupation as owners thereof In these circumstances, the petitioners urge that the action taken by the Tahsildar calling upon them to quit and deliver possession of their lands is unauthorised.

(3.) In the notices, which are similarly worded, the Tahsildar has not set out all the facts and circumstances, the nature and history of the lands justifying his action. But from the very brief statement made in the notices, the Tahsildar appears to hold (1) that the lands weire in am lands attached to the village offices the tenure of which has been, abolished and has vested in the State Government and (2) that the alienations made by the, holders of village, offices were in contravention of S.5 (3) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the above basis, the Tahsildar has called upon the petitioners to quit and deliver vacant possession of the lands within 7 days of the receipt of the notices. But in the view, I propose to take, it is unnecessary to examine the rival claims of the parties to the lands.