M B DEVARAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein had challenged the notice issued by the respondent 2, the Tahsildar, copy as at Annexure-E to writ petition, whereby the Tahsildar had directed the petitioner to vacate the very subject land measuring 6 acres in Sy. No. 167 of Agani village. He had further sought for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the said extent of land in pursuance of his application dated 18-4-1991, copy as at Annexure-B to writ petition, filed by him.

(2.) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. N. Ma-habaleshwar Rao. The respondents 1 to 3 are represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri M. N. Ramanjaneya gowda.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner had taken me through the facts of the case and further the grounds made out in the writ petition. It is his case that the petitioner herein being the cultivator of the subject land for thirty years had filed Form No. 50 as contemplated under Rule 108-C of the Land Grant Rules for regularisation of his unauthorised cultivation and that the said application was duly received by the office of the respondent 2 on 18-4-1991, copy as at annexure-C to writ petition. It is also his submission that when the said application of the petitioner was pending before the Regularisation Authority, the respondent 2 had issued the impugned notice whereby he had directed the petitioner to vacate from the premises wherein he had grown cardamom and coffee plant. According to Sri Rao, the impugned notice was totally illegal inasmuch as his application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation was very much pending before the Authority. He prayed that the impugned notice be quashed and the respondents be directed to consider the application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the subject land measuring 6 acres.