SHARANAPPA BASAPPA DINDAWAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is presented against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, in which he had challenged the order of the Land Tribunal, Bijapur Taluk.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are asfollow:- The appellant, was owning 15 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 102 and 28 acres 10 guntas in Sy. No. 28/2 of Ankalagi village in Bijapur taluk. The total extent of land held by him was 43 acres 16 guntas. By a registered Ex change Deed dated 18-8-1971 the appellant exchanged 28 acres 10 guntas of land to 30 acres 24 guntas of land in Sy.No. 175 belong ing to one Gurappa Bhimaraya Biradar. The resultant position was, the appellant was having 15 acres 6 guntas in Sy.No. 102 and 30 acres 24 guntas in Sy.No. 175 which had been got by exchange, the total being 45 acres 30 guntas.

(3.) The Land Reforms Act, 1961 was sub jected to certain revolutionary amendmentswith effect from 1-3-1974. According to Section 66 of the Act, ceiling for holding of agricultural lands was fixed. There is no dis pute that according to the said provision, having regard to the nature of lands which the appellant was holding the ceiling limit was 54 acres. The appellant filed a declaration before the Land Tribunal to the effect that the total holding of the appellant was within the ceiling limit. But the Land Tribunal held that in view of Section 63(10)(ii) of the Act, the extent of 28 acres 10 guntas of land which the appellant disposed of by exchange should also be added to 45 acres 30 guntas and thereby the total was nationally arrived at 74 acres and the appellant was asked to surrender 20 acres. Ag grieved by the said order, the appellant presented a writ petition. The contention in the writ petition was that in computing the actual holding of the appellant either the land which the appellant got in exchange i.e. 30 acres and 24 guntas or the land which the appellant gave in exchange, namely, 28 acres 10 guntas should have been included, but not both and by including both though actually the appellant was having only 45 acres 30 guntas of land as on 1-3-1974 he was asked to surrender 20 acres of land. The writ petition was dismissed rejecting the contention of the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has presented this appeal.