CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 23/25-10-1991 passed by the respondent 1, Assistant commissioner, Bijapur Sub-Division, Bijapur in Case No. LRM: cr:27:91-92, copy as at Annexure-C to the writ petition. In passing the said order, the Assistant Commissioner while setting aside the ME. No. 192, held that the land had vested under section 45 (3) of the Land Reforms Act, in pursuance whereof, the auction was also directed to be taken under Section 77 of the land Reforms Act.

( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. S. Patil. The respondent 1, State, respondent 2, Assistant commissioner and the respondent 3, Tahsildar, Bijapur are served with notices and they remained absent. Therefore, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri S. S. Guttal is directed to take notice for the said respondents. I have also heard him.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner while taking me through the facts of the case submitted that an extent of 37 guntas of land in S. No. 603/21 of Sarawada village of Bijapur taluk owned by the petitioner was under cultivation of the petitioner and that at one point of time, the mutation entry for the year 1973-74 down to the year 1988-89, in respect of the said land stood in the name of Mallayya Muragayya Gennur. It is stated that the said Mallayya Muragayya Gennur is none other than the maternal uncle of the petitioner herein and that the subject land was shown as a tenanted land under the said gennur in the pahani entries; that subsequently the petitioner herein had initiated ME proceedings before the respondent 3, tahsildar and got the said ME corrected to show the name of the petitioner herein as the owner in cultivation; that subsequently the respondent 3 had sent a report in No. LRM:cr:27:91-92 to the respondent 2, Assistant Commissioner wherein he had reported that the said land was shown to have been under cultivation under tenancy prior to the year 1973-74; that thereafter a show-cause notice dated 20-8-1991 was issued to the petitioner herein to show-cause as to why the said land be not forfeited to the State. As against the said show-cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner herein had shown cause by his reply dated 4-10-1991 to the respondent 2, Assistant Commissioner; that thereafter on perusal of the reply and further in consideration of the report of the Tahsildar, respondent 3, the respondent 2, Assistant Commissioner had passed the impugned order. Having been aggrieved thereto, the petitioner herein had filed the writ petition to challenge the same.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset pointed out that the respondent 2, Assistant Commissioner did not get jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 45 (3) of the Land Reforms Act and further to say that the said land be distributed under Section 77 of the Act. Let apart, he also submitted that when the mutation entry was corrected by the tahsildar, if at all anybody had the grievance against the same, what was available under law was to file an appeal against the order in the ME proceedings. Sri Patil further submitted that at any stretch of imagination, the Assistant Commissioner did not get jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. While summing up his argument, he submitted that the subject land was not a tenanted land at any point of time and it is for that reason the me was corrected. Therefore, according to him the question of passing the impugned order by the respondent 2, Assistant commissioner did not arise. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that under Section 44 of the Land Reforms Act when the subject land was shown as a tenanted land as per the pahani entries from the period earlier to 1973-74 to the year 1988-89, it is obvious that the land had vested in the State. According to him under Section 44 of the Land Reforms Act wherever the land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document