GLADYS DSOUZA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL MUDIGERE TQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of the registered sale deed executed on 31-1-79 by the third respondent, the petitioners had become the owners of lands measuring a total extent of 24 acres 21 guntas situated in Coove village, Belur Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chickmagalur District. The following particulars show the survey numbers and the extent of lands so purchased:

(2.) The trouble began when the third respondent gave a declaration on 27-12-74 prior to the execution of the sale deed on 31- 1-79 in favour of the petitioners as required under Section 66 and 69 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in the prescribed form No. 11 showing the total extent of holdings held by the third respondent and his family as on 18-11-67, 24-1-71, and after 24-1-71 before the Special Tahsildar, Mudigere Taluk, Mudigere. Copy of the declaration is annexure-'C. The real mischief arose when respondent 'No. 1 passed an order on the basis of the report submitted by the Special Tahsildar dated 12-10-82 holding that the third respondent and the members of his family cannot hold more than one share of 54 acres of 'D' class land and that an extent of 24 acres 39 guntas of `D' class land exceeds the ceiling limits and therefore action should be taken to divest the third respondent of the possession of the excess lands on behalf of the Government, after initiating necessary proceedings with due communication to the concerned authority under Section 83 of the Act. In so far as the third respondent is concerned no damage to his rights was caused because he had already parted with the land in question in favour of the petitioners under the sale deed dated 31-1-79 subsequent to the declaration given by the third respondent under the Act. However, it is not clear as to why the petitioner had no knowledge of the prior declaration nor why the third respondent did not inform the petitioners that such a declaration had been filed.

(3.) In the context of the above facts, the question for consideration is whether the impugned action under annexure-'D' is illegal having been passed without notice to the petitioners who happened to be the purchasers from the third respondent under a registered sale deed for valuable consideration as bona fide purchaser.