MANJAPPA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and sri B. Veerappa, learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4.

(2.) THE subject matter of the Writ Petition is 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 36, Block No. ll of Bilasugodu Village, Sagar Taluk. The said land was granted to one Kannappa for full market price under the then Mysore Land Revenue Rules as amended by the Mysore Land revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, by the Special Land Acquisition officer, Sagar, vide Order No. Dis. R3. DAR. 76/62-63 dated 4. 12. 1962. The said Saguvali chit was issued to Kannappa on 5. 5. 1964. The said grantee and his son sold the land in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 20. 4. 1968 for a valuable consideration and ever since then the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land. The name of the petitioner has been mutated as per Annexure-J on the basis of the sale deed. The name of the petitioner has been entered in the revenue records as could be seen from the RTC and pahanies for the years 1970-71 to 73-74, 1989-90 to 1995 produced as Annexure-A, A1 and B. The petitioner has paid kandayam Annexure C to H. After purchase, the petitioner claimed that he has invested huge amount for levelling the land, constructing farm house, putting up fence, for installing the pump set for irrigation and for various developmental works and for bringing the land under fertile cultivation. The petitioner is earning livelihood and maintaining his family from the income derived from the land. As per Annexure-M, the Assistant Commissioner (Darkast), shimoga has cancelled the grant on the ground that there is violation of the terms of the grant in selling the land and he however directed the Tahsildar to submit proposals for resumption to the Government. The Government has not initiated any proceedings for resumption of the land and there is no resumption by the Government as observed' in Annexure-M.

(3.) IT is alleged that without notice to the petitioner whose name was appearing in the revenue records, a mutation came to be effected on the basis of Annexure-M to delete the name and to enter the name of Government as per the said mutation is produced as Annexure-K. Immediately after coming to know of mutation entry, vide Annexure-K through the Revenue Inspector, the petitioner filed appeal before 1st respondent, who by his order Annexure-L dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has sought for a writ for declaring Annexure-M as null and void and without authority of law or in the alternative for quashing Annexure-M. He has also sought for dashing of mutation entry at Annexure-K and the order at annexure-L.