R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant's family consists of himself, his wife, one son and one daughter. According to appellant, there was an oral partition between himself and his minor son [sharanappa] on 13-3-1972 and subsequently that was reduced into writing in the form of a memorandum of partition [palupatti]. According to appellant, under the said petition his minor son had been allotted Sy. Nos. 86 [7 acres 21 guntas], 156 [6 acres 15 guntas], 65 [6 guntas], 66/1 [2 acres 17 guntas], 290/a [34 guntas], 293/a [1 acre 11 guntas] and 294/b [18 guntas] in all 19 acres 02 guntas; and the appellant held the remaining land viz. , Sy. Nos. 69/3 [3 acres 12 guntas], 74/2 [6 acres 20 guntas], 85 [10 acres 5 guntasj, 334 [24 guntas], 335 [34 guntas], 338 [5 acres 6 guntas] and 40 113 acres] in all 39 acres 21 guntas,

( 2 ) THE appellant filed a declaration under Section 66 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] in regard to the lands held by him. In the said declaration, he disclosed the total extent of lands held by him and also by his family members. According to appellant, the land which had fallen to the share of his minor son sharanappa under the partition dated 13-3-1972 had to be excluded to determine whether he (the appellant) holds any excess land or not.

( 3 ) THE Land Tribunal, Raichur by order dated 4-10-1981 held that the appellant was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. Appellant challenge the said order in W. P. No. 1664 of 1982. This Court by order dated 22-2-1984 allowed the said writ petition, set aside the order of the tribunal and remanded the matter to Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. On remand the Tribunal reconsidered the matter and passed a fresh order dated 6-3-1987. It found that the appellant had filed the declaration declaring an extent of 60 acres 10 guntas of pooratipli Village; that on verification it found that the actual land held by the appellant was 58 acres 23 guntas (including a phut kharab of 1 gunta); that an extent of 55 acres 39 guntas was 'd' class land and 2 acres 23 guntas was 'c' class land; that when the 'c' class land was converted to 'd' class, the total extent would be equivalent to 61 acres 21 guntas of 'd' class land; and that as the ceiling limit was only 54 acres, the appellant held 7 acres 20 guntas of 'd' land in excess of the ceiling limit. The Tribunal held that as the partition dated 13-3-1972 was not by a registered deed, but merely by means of a palupatti on stamp paper of Rs. 2/-, it cannot be taken into consideration. As a consequence, the tribunal held that the appellant should surrender 7 acres 20 guntas of 'd' class land held to be excess.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Raichur district Land Reforms Appellate Authority in R. A. No. 37 of 1987. The appellate Authority by order dated 7-1-1988 ordered the return of the appeal to the appellant, as the order by the Tribunal was made final under Section 67 (l) (d) of the Act and not therefore appealable. Thereafter, the appellant filed W. P. No. 2536 of 1992, challenging the order dated 6-3-1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, duly explaining the delay. In the said writ petition, he contended that the Tribunal committed a serious error in refusing to take note of the partition deed (palupatti) dated 13-3-1972 between himself and his minor son sharanappa. Relying on the decisions of a learned Single Judge of this court in Revanna Siddappa Hadri v Assistant Commissioner, Indi and others, and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul khader v Land Tribunal, Sedam and Another, the appellant contended before the learned Single Judge that the lands allotted to his minor son sharanappa on partition shall have to be excluded while calculating the extent of land held by him, having regard to Section 63 (10) of the Act as such a partition had taken place prior to 1-3-1974.

( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge, by order dated 15-7-1996 dismissed the writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document