M SUBRAYA PRABHU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 19-1-1999 passed in Case No. ULC:sr: 308:76-77 (Padavu) and also against the order dated 25-2-1991 passed in ULC:sr:308:76-77 at annexures-A and B to the writ petition. The order dated 25-2-1991 is the order declaring excess vacant land determined as stands unaltered. In pursuance of Order dated 25-2-1991 an award has been given on 19-1-1999 which is Annexure-A. By an order dated 25-2-1991 and 1. 10 1/2 acres or 4470-20 was determined to be excess land. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's agricultural land has wrongly been included while determining the excess land. Learned Counsel also contended that the Land Tribunal has declared this land to be agricultural land. The learned Counsel contended that when the Land Tribunal has declared it to be the agricultural land, the competent authority could not hold that it was not an agricultural land unless it was converted.

(3.) THE learned Government Counsel pointed out that this declaration of agricultural land by the land Tribunal is not relevant and material for the purpose of the case. He submitted that this declaration on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies or the order he relies is of the year 1991. The learned Government Counsel also contended that the petitioner had to make out a case before the Deputy Commissioner or competent authority that the land was mainly used for the purpose of agriculture on the appointed day that is the date on which the Ceiling Act came into operation in the State of Karnataka namely in the year 1976, I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties.