The main legal point established in the judgment is that the state government has the power to extinguish kumki privileges under Section 79(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and such power must be understood as conferring power on the state government to extinguish the continuance of kumki rights.

Judgement Key Points

P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) SRI s. n. hatti, learned additional government Advocate is directed to take notice to respondents 4 to 6.

( 2 ) THE question that would arise for consideration in these petitions is as to the power of the 4th respondent-deputy commissioner to withdraw the kumki privileges enjoyed by varghadars of certain agricultural lands.

( 3 ) THE petitioners in these petitions claim that they have been enjoying kumki privileges in respect of land measuring 1 acre 89 cents out of 7 acres 55 cents in sy. No. 152/2-a1 of kariyangala village, bantwal taluk, dakshina kannada district as they are the varghadars of certain agricultural lands situated adjacent to the said lands referred to above.

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioners have been enjoying kumki rights in respect of lands referred to above. The deputy commissioner in exercise of the power delegated to him by the state government under Section 195 of the Karnataka land revenue act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") passed an order dated 5th august, 1997, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E , extinguishing the kumki rights of the petitioners and others in respect of the lands referred to above. The correctness of the said order passed by the deputy commissioner was called in question by the petitioners in an appeal before the 5th respondent Karnataka appellate tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "tribunal" ). The tribunal by its order dated 24th june, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-q dismissed the appeal holding that the deputy commissioner was entitled to pass order under sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act extinguishing kumki rights of the peti-tioners. Aggrieved by the said orders, these writ petitions are presented before this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india.

( 5 ) SRI sanath kumar shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners challenging the correctness of the orders impugned urged three contentions. Firstly, he submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act does not authorise either the state government or the deputy commissioner to extinguish the kumki rights. According to him, Section 79 of the act only confers power on the state government to regulate the kumki privileges to be enjoyed by the varghadars. In support of his plea, he referred to me the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore V K. Chandrasekhara adiga and another, and drew my attention to para 25 of the said judgment. Secondly, he submitted that since there are other lands available in village and the lands in question are absolutely necessary by the petitioners and others for effective enjoyment of their vargha lands, the deputy commissioner was not justified in passing order at Annexure-E extinguishing kumki lights of the petitioners in respect of lands in question. He submitted that the said order has been passed without any application of mind and in a mechanical manner. Finally, he submitted that since the petitioners have filed form No. 53 in terms of Rule 108-c (2) of the karnataka land revenue rules (hereinafter referred to as the "rules"), the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the lands in question, till the said applications are disposed of, even if the kumki rights, of the petitioners in respect of said lands are extinguished.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, Sri S. N. Hatti, learned additional government Advocate and Sri Taranath Poojari, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, supported the impugned orders.

( 7 ) BEFORE I proceed to consider the contentions urged by Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, it is useful to refer to Section 79 of the act which reads as hereunder:"79. Regulation of supply of firewood and timber for domestic or other purposes. (1) in any village or land in which the rights of the state government to the trees have been reserved under Section 75 subject to certain privilege of the villagers or of certain classes of persons to cut f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document