M RATHNA Vs. SPL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the widow of a soldier who died while he was engaged in operations for the defence of the country, has in this writ petition prayed for a writ of mandamus against the first respondent to take such steps as are necessary to evict respondents 2 to 5 from the lands bearing Sy No. 79 [3 measuring 2 guntas; Sy. No. 64 measuring 24 guntas of Hasiruvani village and Sy. No. 115|2 of Sidihoskote measuring 1 acre and 8 guntasi; and further to direct the first respondent to put the petitioner in possession of the said lands. Thei petitioner made an application under Section 15 (4) of the Kairnataka, Land Reforms Act, before the, Special Tahsildar Anekal Taluk, praying that the respondents 2 to 5 be called upon to deliver popse;ssion of the laiids in question to .the petitioner within a specified time and in the event of their failure to do so, they be summarily evicted. On that application, notices were said to have been issued to lespondents 2 to 5 and the order in that regard was passed on 17-8-1977 by an officer not bqing the Special Tahsildar but purporting to act for Special Tahsildar.

(2.) It is an undjsputeid, fact that the order dated 17-8-1977 was not passed by the Special Tahsilda,r and the same was parsed by an officer other thaji Vhe Special Tahsildar purporting to act for the Special Tahsildar. Under Section 2 (32A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the expressiqn "Tah&ildar" includes a Special Tahsildar empowered by the State Government to exercise all or any of the powers of the Tahsildar under the Act. The power under Section 15 of the Act is to be. exercised by the Tahsildar and in view of the aforesaid definition of the word 'Tahsildar' it can e,ven be exercised by the Special Tahsildar empowered by the State Government in this behalf. Thus,, the Order in question having not been passed by the Tahsildar or by the Special Tahsildar enpowelred, in this behalf and the same, having been passed, by an officer not being the Tahsildar or the Special Tahsildar empowered in th,is behalf, cannot be said to be a valid order. The statutory powers are to be exercised by the officer named in the statute and not by any other officer purporting to act for the officer named in the statute.

(3.) Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for a writ of mandamus for enforcing the said order which as already stated is not a valid order. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the concerned Tahsildar or the Special Tahsildar Empowered in this behalf to take steps on the application made by her produced as Ext-B, and dispose, of the same in accordance with law. With this observation, this writ petition is dismissed.