GOWTHAM TENDULKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the Order dated 31st August 1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B passed by the 2nd respondent for feiting land measuring 22 acres 14 guntas in Sy.No. 279, land measuring 21 acres 33 guntas in Sy.No. 302 and land measuring 3 acres 34 guntas in Sy.No. 308 of Belgundi village, Belgaum Taluk, Belgaum District, in favour of the State Government in exercise of the power conferred on him under Sections 79B and 79C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to hold the said lands.

(2.) Sri Suresh Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the correctness of the order impugned submitted that the entire approach made by the 2nd respondent to the matters in controversy is totally erroneous in law. He submitted that the 2nd respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order on a total misreading of Sections 79B and 79C of the Act. It is his submission that Section 2(11)(iii) of the Act provides for the cultivation of the land by an owner of the land by hired labour and under these circumstances, there is no prohibition either under Section 79B or under any provision of the Act to continue to hold an agricultural land by a person so long as he is able to get the lands cultivated through hired labour. He submitted that the impugned order proceeds on the assumption that since the petitioner is residing outside the country, it is not permissible for him to continue to get the lands cultivated and as such he is not entitled to hold the lands in question.

(3.) However, Sri Chikkavenkataiah, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while strongly.supporting the impugned order submitted that this petition is liable to be dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, he submitted that since the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal provided under Section 118 of the Act and since he has failed to avail of the said remedy, this petition is liable to be rejected on that ground. Secondly, he submitted that since the Tahsildar on consideration of the evidence on record has found that the petitioner is not personally cultivating the lands in question, the said finding being purely a question of fact, this is not a fit case for this Court to interfere against the said finding in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.