SUBBA SHETTI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in bqth these petitions have challenged the validity of the order dated 7th March 1979 passed by the 1st respondent in partial modification of the Government Notification of 20th September 1978, recon stituling the Land Tribunal, Alur in Hassan District. By the order dated 20-9-1978, produced at Exhibit-A, the first respondent ret constituted the Land Tribunal in the Hassan district, and 'the petitioners became the members of the said reconstituted Land Tribunal, Alur. Thereafter, by the impugned order, dated, 7-3-1979, the State Government has again reconstituted the Land Tribunal, Alur, and by this re-constitution, respondents 4 and 5 have been appointed as members of the Land Tribunal in place of the petitioners.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that the action of the. State Government in this regard is arbitrary and discriminatory and as such, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) First of all, it has to be noticed that the petitioners have, no vested or fundamental right to hold the office as members of the Land Tribunal. There is no particular period of tenure fixed in respect of the said office. S. 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1061, (Karnataka Act No. 10 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), empowers the, State Government to constitute, the Tribunal for the purpose of the Act, consisting of numbers mentioned in clauses (1) and (2) of Sub-sec. (3) of S, 48 of the, Act. Sub-section (3) of S. 48 of the Act provides that the, Stae Government may from time to time: likewise reconstitute the Tribunal. The explanation to the said sub-section further provides that the reconstitution shall include removal of a member from or nomination ot a member to the Tribunal. Therefore by the impugned order, the Tribunal came to be re-constituted by nominating respondents 4 and 5 and as result of this, the petitioners automatically ceased to be the, members of the Tribunal. The statute itself does not give any enforceable right to the members of the Tribunal. The members of the Tribunal hold the office during the period the order of constitution or re-constitution of the Tribunal continues to be in force. That being so the question of violation of any fundamental right does not arisq, consequently, the enforcement of the said fundamental right also does not arise in the matter. Hence, these writ petitions fail and are dismissed.