Kumki rights are property rights, and the imposition of fines under Section 94 of the Act is not applicable when the petitioner, as a Wargdar, is in possession and enjoyment of the kumki land.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19-3-1982 issued by the Tahsildar, puttur and the order dated 25-10-1990 passed by the second respondent, the Revenue Inspector and the order dated 7-7-1990 passed by the Village accountant. The petitioner in this writ petition has raised an important question of law as to whether the Wargdar who is enjoying kumki land appertaining to the Wargland could be said to be an unauthorised occupier of the said land and can fine be imposed upon him under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the Warg lands sy. Nos. 258, 258/5-B, 257/2, 267/3, 267/4-A, 267/6-A, 268/b, 268/4-A3 and 270/1-A3 of Nidpalli Village, Puttur Taluk. For the above Warglands, AW lands bearing Sy. Nos. 268/4-A2 and 270/1-A2 form kumki lands. It is stated that the petitioner has been making use of the said kumki lands for the cultivation of his warg land and according to the petitioner, the warg lands have been granted to him several years back and in view of the ancientness of the grant, it is called Kadim Warg land and therefore, kadim Wargdars were entitled for kumki rights. The petitioner has also cited old Madras standing orders regarding enjoyment of the kumki lands.

( 3 ) IT is stated by the petitioner that he has planted coconut and cashew plants in the said land and has also enclosed the said land by means offence in order to prevent catties straying into the land. That on 19-3-1982, the petitioner was issued an eviction notice on the ground that since the lands belong to the Government, double assessment has been levied as penalty and since the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of the land because of his annual income being more than Rs. 2,000/-, the petitioner should handover possession of the kumki lands within 15 days. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, which was dismissed and against the said order he approached the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal by an order dated 3-3-1987 and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for considering the matter afresh.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been directed to pay a TT fine of Rs. 22,004-47 for being in unauthorised cultivation of the kumki land. The petitioner had filed revision petition before the karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed. It is stated that the Village Accountant has issued the notice dated 7-7-1990 calling upon the petitioner to pay the TT fine amount as stated above and subsequently the Revenue Inspector has threatened to attach the warg land properties of the petitioner. He has been issued with another notice produced at Annexure-D for forfeiture etc. , of his properties. It is stated by the petitioner that the notice issued as per Annexures-H, D and F without there being jurisdiction to pass such orders. It is contended by the petitioner that he being Kadim Wargdar is entitled to enjoy and make use of the kumki land attached to the wargland for the better enjoyment of the wargland. It is submitted by Sri Sripathy, the learned counsil appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the kumki land goes along with the wargland enjoyed by the wargdar and making use of the kumki land will not amount to unauthorised occupation or cultivation of the kumki land and since the wargadar can make use of the kumki land, such use of the kumki land can be punished only with a maximum fine of Rs. 200 under Kumki Rules and no exorbitant fine could be imposed under Section 94 of the Act.

( 5 ) SRI Sripathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to my notice, the judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in State of mysore and Others v K. Chandrasekhara Adiga and Another, paragraphs 16,17,18 and 23 in the said judgment read as under:"16. The right of kumkidars in respect of kumki lands an