LAWS(KAR)-1979-5-3

P GOVINDA REDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On May 22, 1979
P.GOVINDA REDDY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing of the order dated 15-10-1977 in Case No. LRM. 3D. 306 of 74-75 made by respondent No. 2 Land Tribunal. Hiriyur (to be referred to as the Tribunal) and the consequential Notification No, RD 35 LRN 78 dated 22-5-1978 of respondent No. 3 Special Tahsildar and Secretary, Land Tribunal, Hiriyur (to be referred to as the Tahsildar)published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20-6-1978, is sought. On 24-12-1974, the writ petitioner had furnished to the Tahsildar, a declaration of his holding as required under S. 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, to be referred to as the Act. The declaration was furnished in Form 11 prescribed under R. 33 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, to be referred to as the Rules. Pursuant to Form 11 declaration furnished by the petitioner, the Tahsildar, in the purported exercise of his powers under S. 67(l)(a) of the Act read with R. 24(1) of the Rules, has prepared some data sheets containing information throwing light on the particulars in the declaration and placed the declaration and the data sheets along with the connected records before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Tribunal has, in the purported exercise of its powers under S. 67(l)(b) of the Act, made an order on 15-10-1977 (to be referred to as the impugned order) which reads thus ;-

(2.) Pursuant to the impugned order, the Tahsildar has, in the purported exercise of his powers under S.73(1) of the Act, issued the Notification published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 20-6.-1978 (to be referred to as the impugned Notification). On the facts and in the circumstances of case, two short questions which are of considerable importance that arise for my consideration and decision are as follows :

(3.) Sri B. V. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the requirement relating to an enquiry provided for in S. 67(1)(b) of the Act being a mandatory procedural requirement, an order made by the Tribunal in violation of such requirement has to be treated as an illegal order and as such a void order. According to him, the requirement relating to an enquiry provided for in the said provision is intended to achieve the purpose of affording an opportunity to the declarant to make an effective representation to the Tribunal as regards the information placed before it by the tahsildar before an order could be made by it affecting the declarant's right to hold the property. His submission, therefore, was, when an enquiry is made a pre-requisite before an order could be made by the Tribunal as would affect the right to property of a declarant, such a requirement relating to an enquiry should be necessarily construed as a mandaty requirement as would render the order made in breach of such mandatory requirement, a nullity. I consider that the submission made by the learned counsel as regards the mandatory requirement relating to an enquiry provided for in S. 67 (1)(b) of the Act deserves to be upheld for the following reasons. As to whether the requirement relating to the enquiry contained in S. 67(1) (b) is mandatory or not, has to depend on the purpose sought to be achieved by the legislature in making the provision for such enquiry. In this context, reference to the provisions contained in sub sec. (1) of S. 67 of the Act becomes necessary. They are :-