PARAMESWARA BHAT Vs. TAHSILDAR KASARAGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ applications raise a common question and pertain to either the assignment of Government lands or attempts to assign Government lands. The petitioners are those who have claimed certain preferential rights in the matter of assignment of lands. The preferential claims have been based on one of two grounds. Some of the petitioners claimed to have Kumki privileges over the lands sought to be assigned. There are others who claimed that they have been in possession bona fide of the lands sought to be assigned and have been malting improvements thereon and have therefore a preferential claim to have the lands assigned to them. To make the picture complete, I may add that some at least of those who claimed Kumki privileges over the lands sought to be assigned have also claimed that they have been in possession and have made improvements thereon.

(2.) I am not concerned with and I do not propose to deal with either the existence or the extent of these privileges claimed by the petitioners. Suffice it for me to say that if the claims put forward by the petitioners are correct or found to be correct they may have certain preferential rights in the matter of assignment. I shall presently show how this is. But to state the contention of the petitioners, what is urged is that ignoring the preferential rights of the petitioners, steps have been taken to assign the lands in favour of others and in certain cases, assignment orders, either provisional or otherwise have been made. It is prayad that these assignments where there have been assignments be set aside and it is also prayed that the authorities be restrained from assigning the lands without properly considering the claims of the petitioners.

(3.) This is a convenient place to group the cases where admittedly orders have been passed. These have been passed in O. P. No. 331 of 1964 (Ex. P4) in favour of respondent 3, in O. P. No. 735 of 1964 in favour of respondents 2 and 3, in O. P. No. 1522 of 1964 in favour of respondent 2 who is called "The Cashew Plantation Officer", in O. P. No. 1724 of 1964 in favour of the same Officer, the 2nd respondent, in O. P. No. 1871 of 1964 by Exs. P1 and P2 in favour of respondents 2 and 3, in O. P. No. 2105 of 1961, again in favour of the Cashew Plantation Officer, the 2nd respondent, in O.P. No. 2597 of 1954 by Exs. P3 to P6 in favour of respondents 4 to 7, in O. P. No. 2830 of 1964 by Ex. P1 in favour of the respondents 2 to 12, in O. P. No. 2953 of 1964 in favour of the Cashew Plantation Officer, the 2nd respondent, in O.P. No. 3245 of 1964 by Exs. P1 and P2 provisional assignment orders in favour of respondents 2 and 3, in O. P. No. 311 of 1965 by Ex. P1 provisional assignment order in favour of respondents 2 to 5 and in O. P. No. 579 of 1965 by Ex. P1 provisional assignment order in favour of respondents 3 and 4.