Back
Karnataka High Court
G.K.MALLIKARJUNAPPA - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANGERE DISTRICT, DAVANGERE - Respondent
Decided On : 01-18-05
W.P. : 46614 of 2002
KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1960
Rule 30 -Delegation of power -Director of Audit issued a notification reducing or exempting audit fee in respect of certain societies -Prior approval of Government -Obtained -Hence, issue of notification does not amount to sub-delegation of power.
[H. L. Dattu and H. N. Nagamohan Das, JJ]: Condition is under the revisions of the Land Revenue Act and the conditions are under the rules. Rules are supplemental to the substantial provisions. What is not provided for is supplemented by the Rules. If the condition is imposed, which is not at variance with the Rules, and it can achieve a better result than what is provided for under the rules, such condition cannot be held to be bad. Even with or without a finding that the grant was free, the condition of fifteen years non-alienation operates on such grant. But, in this case, the grant is a free grant and the condition is also inconsonance with the Rules. The transfer of the land in question in the year 1967 therefore clearly indicates that it is within the non-alienation period. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are attracted and the sale is to be invalidated and the land has to be resumed to the State and to be restored in favour of the grantee or his/her legal heir. That is precisely what the Deputy commissioner has done under the order passed by him in exercise of his appellate power under the Act.
Case Referred: 1993(4) Kar. L.J 328 (DB): ILR 1993 Kar 551 (DB).
STATUTE LAW - Social beneficial Statute
Social beneficial Statute - Authorities functioning under - Duty cast on.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The applicants are not called upon before the Assistant Commissioner to prove their case like in any adversary litigation. The Act is a piece of welfare legislation meant for protecting the interests of the downtrodden people and whose ignorance and vulnerability could have been taken advantage by others by knocking off the lands which were granted in favour of such persons by the government and in most of such cases as a free grant, to the detriment of such grantees. A duty is cast upon the Assistant Commissioner, who is functioning under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and in fact he is a superior officer over Tahsildar, who normally maintain records, can examine all aspects of the matter and to take action under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of giving effect to the intention and object of the Act. It is to be noticed that the Assistant Commissioner can also take Suo motu proceedings even when no applicant has come forward seeking for in validation of transfer of granted land in violation of the terms of the grant. When such is the scenario, the attitude on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to reject the application simply on the ground that the Tahsildar, who is his subordinate, has not forwarded the records or the applicant has not come forward with material to support the case, is a finding and decision wholly unwarranted and to be deprecated. It only shows dereliction of duty on the part of the Assistant Commissioner. It is for the authorities concerned to take note of this and to take appropriate action against such Assistant Commissioners who take shelter under frivolous and untenable grounds to reject the applications filed under the Act.
Conditions on land grant 811
KARNATAKA LAND GRANT RULES, 1969 - Rule 4 - Conditions on land grant - Grant imposing onerous conditions over and above those prescribed by the rules under which grant was made - Held, such condition cannot be read down to mean as limiting the condition to the maximum period of non -alienation prescribed by the rules - Nor the grant is bad. See, Karnataka SC And ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 - Section 5.
Burden of proof
ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM - Burden of proof - Land granted to a member of Scheduled Caste alienated - Grantee s heir initiated proceedings for restoration of land - Applicant need not prove his case as in an adversary litigation - A duty is cast on the authorities to peruse the relevant records and examine the same.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The applicants are not called upon before the Assistant Commissioner to prove their case like in any adversary litigation. The Act is a piece of welfare legislation meant for protecting the interests of the downtrodden people and whose ignorance and vulnerability could have been taken advantage by others by knocking off the lands which were granted in favour of such persons by the government and in most of such cases as a free grant, to the detriment of such grantees. A duty is cast upon the Assistant Commissioner, who is functioning under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and in fact he is a superior officer over Tahsildar, who normally maintain records, can examine all aspects of the matter and to take action under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of giving effect to the intention and object of the Act. It is to be noticed that the Assistant Commissioner can also take Suo motu proceedings even when no applicant has come forward seeking for in validation of transfer of granted land in violation of the terms of the grant. When such is the scenario, the attitude on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to reject the application simply on the ground that the Tahsildar, who is his subordinate, has not forwarded the records or the applicant has not come forward with material to support the case, is a finding and decision wholly unwarranted and to be deprecated. It only shows dereliction of duty on the part of the Assistant Commissioner. It is for the authorities concerned to take note of this and to take appropriate action against such Assistant Commissioners who take shelter under frivolous and untenable grounds to reject the applications filed under the Act
Case Referred: 1993(4) Kar. L.J 328 (DB): ILR 1993 Kar 551 (DB).
Proof of land grant
BURDEN OF PROOF - Land granted to a member of Scheduled Caste alienated - Grantee s heir initiated proceedings for restoration of land - Applicant need not prove his case as in an adversary litigation - A duty is cast on the authorities to peruse the relevant records and examine the same.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The applicants are not called upon before the Assistant Commissioner to prove their case like in any adversary litigation. The Act is a piece of welfare legislation meant for protecting the interests of the downtrodden people and whose ignorance and vulnerability could have been taken advantage by others by knocking off the lands which were granted in favour of such persons by the government and in most of such cases as a free grant, to the detriment of such grantees. A duty is cast upon the Assistant Commissioner, who is functioning under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and in fact he is a superior officer over Tahsildar, who normally maintain records, can examine all aspects of the matter and to take action under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of giving effect to the intention and object of the Act. It is to be noticed that the Assistant Commissioner can also take Suo motu proceedings even when no applicant has come forward seeking for in validation of transfer of granted land in violation of the terms of the grant. When such is the scenario, the attitude on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to reject the application simply on the ground that the Tahsildar, who is his subordinate, has not forwarded the records or the applicant has not come forward with material to support the case, is a finding and decision wholly unwarranted and to be deprecated. It only shows dereliction of duty on the part of the Assistant Commissioner. It is for the authorities concerned to take note of this and to take appropriate action against such Assistant Commissioners who take shelter under frivolous and untenable grounds to reject the applications filed under the Act.
Case Referred: 1993(4) Kar. L.J 328 (DB): ILR 1993 Kar 551 (DB).
Proof of land grant
BURDEN OF PROOF - Land granted to a member of Scheduled Caste alienated - Grantee s heir initiated proceedings for restoration of land - Applicant need not prove his case as in an adversary litigation - A duty is cast on the authorities to peruse the relevant records and examine the same.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The applicants are not called upon before the Assistant Commissioner to prove their case like in any adversary litigation. The Act is a piece of welfare legislation meant for protecting the interests of the downtrodden people and whose ignorance and vulnerability could have been taken advantage by others by knocking off the lands which were granted in favour of such persons by the government and in most of such cases as a free grant, to the detriment of such grantees. A duty is cast upon the Assistant Commissioner, who is functioning under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and in fact he is a superior officer over Tahsildar, who normally maintain records, can examine all aspects of the matter and to take action under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of giving effect to the intention and object of the Act. It is to be noticed that the Assistant Commissioner can also take Suo motu proceedings even when no applicant has come forward seeking for in validation of transfer of granted land in violation of the terms of the grant. When such is the scenario, the attitude on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to reject the application simply on the ground that the Tahsildar, who is his subordinate, has not forwarded the records or the applicant has not come forward with material to support the case, is a finding and decision wholly unwarranted and to be deprecated. It only shows dereliction of duty on the part of the Assistant Commissioner. It is for the authorities concerned to take note of this and to take appropriate action against such Assistant Commissioners who take shelter under frivolous and untenable grounds to reject the applications filed under the Act.
Case Referred: 1993(4) Kar. L.J 328 (DB): ILR 1993 Kar 551 (DB).
Constitution of India - Legality of order of authority - Article -227 - Legality of order of authority -Legal heir filed an application for restoration of land sold by his father (grantee) - Non -availability of original records like Saguvali Chit- Tahsildar expressed his inability by saying the records are not traceable - Assistant Commissioner rejected the application - Deputy Commissioner obtained extracts from register pertaining to Saguvali Chits, Mutation Index and other records showing name of grantee, his caste and records showing name of grantee, his caste and nature of grant - Declared sale as void - Held, the order answer tests prescribed in Pedda Reddy s case (ILR 1993 Kar. 551) - Order is proper -Cannot be interfered with under the Article. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The action on the part of the Deputy Commissioner is just and warranted. It is appreciable that the Deputy Commissioner -Appellate Authority - did not merely follow the tactics employed by the Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter, and has put in efforts in perusing the available records to draw his own inference. The Deputy Commissioner on a perusal of the available records, has found that the grant was in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community namely Adi Karnataka and that other entries in the relevant records indicated that the grant was saddled with a condition of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years. The Deputy Commissioner has come to this conclusion on looking into the relevant available records where the condition is mentioned to be one of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years. The condition of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years operates in respect of free grants, in terms of the Rules that were prevailing at the relevant point of time and that the grant was a free grant. The finding may be one based on a process of reasoning and an inference from it, but cannot be characterized as a perverse finding or a finding not based on any material at all. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in PEDDA REDDY s case [1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328], the present case is a situation where there is a finding recorded both on the aspects of grantee belonging to scheduled caste and that the grant was a free grant, attracting the condition of non-alienation for fifteen years. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner answers the test prescribed in PEDDA REDDY s [1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328] case and is not in contravention. This aspect apart, even ignoring the finding that the grant is a free grant, the condition of fifteen years as culled out from the records, is very much available and does stare at the petitioner. It is not in dispute that when it was a grant with a condition of non-alienation period of 10 years, the grant is for upset price and if the non-alienation period is fifteen years, it is a free grant.
Case Referred: 1993(4) Kar. L.J 328 (DB): ILR 1993 Kar 551 (DB).
Legality of order of authority
Constitution of India - Article -227 - Legality of order of authority -Legal heir filed an application for restoration of land sold by his father (grantee) - Non -availability of original records like Saguvali Chit- Tahsildar expressed his inability by saying the records are not traceable - Assistant Commissioner rejected the application - Deputy Commissioner obtained extracts from register pertaining to Saguvali Chits, Mutation Index and other records showing name of grantee, his caste and records showing name of grantee, his caste and nature of grant - Declared sale as void - Held, the order answer tests prescribed in Pedda Reddy s case (ILR 1993 Kar. 551) - Order is proper -Cannot be interfered with under the Article.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The action on the part of the Deputy Commissioner is just and warranted. It is appreciable that the Deputy Commissioner -Appellate Authority - did not merely follow the tactics employed by the Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter, and has put in efforts in perusing the available records to draw his own inference. The Deputy Commissioner on a perusal of the available records, has found that the grant was in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community namely Adi Karnataka and that other entries in the relevant records indicated that the grant was saddled with a condition of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years. The Deputy Commissioner has come to this conclusion on looking into the relevant available records where the condition is mentioned to be one of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years. The condition of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years operates in respect of free grants, in terms of the Rules that were prevailing at the relevant point of time and that the grant was a free grant. The finding may be one based on a process of reasoning and an inference from it, but cannot be characterized as a perverse finding or a finding not based on any material at all. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in PEDDA REDDY s case [1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328], the present case is a situation where there is a finding recorded both on the aspects of grantee belonging to scheduled caste and that the grant was a free grant, attracting the condition of non-alienation for fifteen years. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner answers the test prescribed in PEDDA REDDY s [1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328] case and is not in contravention. This aspect apart, even ignoring the finding that the grant is a free grant, the condition of fifteen years as culled out from the records, is very much available and does stare at the petitioner. It is not in dispute that when it was a grant with a condition of non-alienation period of 10 years, the grant is for upset price and if the non-alienation period is fifteen years, it is a free grant.
Case Referred: 1993(4) Kar. L.J 328 (DB): ILR 1993 Kar 551 (DB).
Duty of authorities
Constitution of India - Article 341 - Duty of authorities - Land granted to a member of Adi Karnataka Community - Sold by grantee within the period of non-alienation - Heir filed application for restoration - Non -availability of original records of grant - Duty of authorities.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The applicants are not called upon before the Assistant Commissioner to prove their case like in any adversary litigation. The Act is a piece of welfare legislation meant for protecting the interests of the downtrodden people and whose ignorance and vulnerability could have been taken advantage by others by knocking off the lands which were granted in favour of such persons by the government and in most of such cases as a free grant, to the detriment of such grantees. A duty is cast upon the Assistant Commissioner, who is functioning under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and in fact he is a superior officer over Tahsildar, who normally maintain records, can examine all aspects of the matter and to take action under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of giving effect to the intention and object of the Act. It is to be noticed that the Assistant Commissioner can also take Suo motu proceedings even when no applicant has come forward seeking for in validation of transfer of granted land in violation of the terms of the grant. When such is the scenario, the attitude on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to reject the application simply on the ground that the Tahsildar, who is his subordinate, has not forwarded the records or the applicant has not come forward with material to support the case, is a finding and decision wholly unwarranted and to be deprecated. It only shows dereliction of duty on the part of the Assistant Commissioner. It is for the authorities concerned to take note of this and to take appropriate action against such Assistant Commissioners who take shelter under frivolous and untenable grounds to reject the applications filed under the Act.
Cases Referred: 1993(4) Kar. L.J 328 (DB): ILR 1993 Kar 551 (DB).
Welfare legislation
SOCIAL JUSTICE - Welfare legislation - Authorities dealing with -Duty cast on.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The applicants are not called upon before the Assistant Commissioner to prove their case like in any adversary litigation. The Act is a piece of welfare legislation meant for protecting the interests of the downtrodden people and whose ignorance and vulnerability could have been taken advantage by others by knocking off the lands which were granted in favour of such persons by the government and in most of such cases as a free grant, to the detriment of such grantees. A duty is cast upon the Assistant Commissioner, who is functioning under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and in fact he is a superior officer over Tahsildar, who normally maintain records, can examine all aspects of the matter and to take action under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of giving effect to the intention and object of the Act. It is to be noticed that the Assistant Commissioner can also take Suo motu proceedings even when no applicant has come forward seeking for in validation of transfer of granted land in violation of the terms of the grant. When such is the scenario, the attitude on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to reject the application simply on the ground that the Tahsildar, who is his subordinate, has not forwarded the records or the applicant has not come forward with material to support the case, is a finding and decision wholly unwarranted and to be deprecated. It only shows dereliction of duty on the part of the Assistant Commissioner. It is for the authorities concerned to take note of this and to take appropriate action against such Assistant Commissioners who take shelter under frivolous and untenable grounds to reject the applications filed under the Act.
Duty of the authorities under
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Duty of the authorities under - Application for restoration of granted land which was sold by the grantee - A duty is cast on the authorities to peruse the relevant records and examine the same - Even if the records are not produced by the applicant and if they are not forthcoming from the authorities concerned, authorities under the Act are empowered to initiate suo motu proceedings - Application cannot be rejected on the ground of non-availability of records.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The applicants are not called upon before the Assistant Commissioner to prove their case like in any adversary litigation. The Act is a piece of welfare legislation meant for protecting the interests of the downtrodden people and whose ignorance and vulnerability could have been taken advantage by others by knocking off the lands which were granted in favour of such persons by the government and in most of such cases as a free grant, to the detriment of such grantees. A duty is cast upon the Assistant Commissioner, who is functioning under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and in fact he is a superior officer over Tahsildar, who normally maintain records, can examine all aspects of the matter and to take action under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of giving effect to the intention and object of the Act. It is to be noticed that the Assistant Commissioner can also take Suo motu proceedings even when no applicant has come forward seeking for in validation of transfer of granted land in violation of the terms of the grant. When such is the scenario, the attitude on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to reject the application simply on the ground that the Tahsildar, who is his subordinate, has not forwarded the records or the applicant has not come forward with material to support the case, is a finding and decision wholly unwarranted and to be deprecated. It only shows dereliction of duty on the part of the Assistant Commissioner. It is for the authorities concerned to take note of this and to take appropriate action against such Assistant Commissioners who take shelter under frivolous and untenable grounds to reject the applications filed under the Act.
Case Referred: 1993(4) Kar. L.J 328 (DB): ILR 1993 Kar 551 (DB).
Restoration of granted land
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Section 5 - Restoration of granted land - Legal heir filed an application for restoration of land sold by his father (grantee) - Non -availability of original records like Saguvali Chit- Tahsildar expressed his inability by saying the records are not traceable - Assistant Commissioner rejected the application - Deputy Commissioner obtained extracts from register pertaining to Saguvali Chits, Mutation Index and other records showing name of grantee, his caste and records showing name of grantee, his caste and nature of grant - Declared sale as void - Held, the order answer tests prescribed in Pedda Reddy s case (ILR 1993 Kar. 551).
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: The action on the part of the Deputy Commissioner is just and warranted. It is appreciable that the Deputy Commissioner -Appellate Authority - did not merely follow the tactics employed by the Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter, and has put in efforts in perusing the available records to draw his own inference. The Deputy Commissioner on a perusal of the available records, has found that the grant was in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community namely Adi Karnataka and that other entries in the relevant records indicated that the grant was saddled with a condition of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years. The Deputy Commissioner has come to this conclusion on looking into the relevant available records where the condition is mentioned to be one of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years. The condition of non-alienation for a period of fifteen years operates in respect of free grants, in terms of the Rules that were prevailing at the relevant point of time and that the grant was a free grant. The finding may be one based on a process of reasoning and an inference from it, but cannot be characterized as a perverse finding or a finding not based on any material at all. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in PEDDA REDDY s case [1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328], the present case is a situation where there is a finding recorded both on the aspects of grantee belonging to scheduled caste and that the grant was a free grant, attracting the condition of non-alienation for fifteen years. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner answers the test prescribed in PEDDA REDDY s [1993 (1) Kar. L. J. 328] case and is not in contravention. This aspect apart, even ignoring the finding that the grant is a free grant, the condition of fifteen years as culled out from the records, is very much available and does stare at the petitioner. It is not in dispute that when it was a grant with a condition of non-alienation period of 10 years, the grant is for upset price and if the non-alienation period is fifteen years, it is a free grant.
Conditions on land grant
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Section 5 - Conditions on land grant - Grant imposing onerous conditions over and above those prescribed by the rules under which grant was made - Held, such condition cannot be read down to mean as limiting the condition to the maximum period of non -alienation prescribed by the rules - Nor the grant is bad.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: An actual condition in the grant order assuming that it imposes an onerous condition over and above what is permitted under the Rules which are applicable to such grant, at the relevant point of time, the condition does operate and such grant with such condition, cannot become bad or that the condition cannot be read down as limiting the condition to the maximum period permitted under the Rules. It is to be borne in mind that the power to impose condition is under the revisions of the Land Revenue Act and the conditions are under the rules. Rules are supplemental to the substantial provisions. What is not provided for is supplemented by the Rules. If the condition is imposed, which is not at variance with the Rules, and it can achieve a better result than what is provided for under the rules, such condition cannot be held to be bad. Even with or without a finding that the grant was free, the condition of fifteen years non-alienation operates on such grant. But, in this case, the grant is a free grant and the condition is also inconsonance with the Rules. The transfer of the land in question in the year 1967 therefore clearly indicates that it is within the non-alienation period. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are attracted and the sale is to be invalidated and the land has to be resumed to the State and to be restored in favour of the grantee or his/her legal heir. That is precisely what the Deputy commissioner has done under the order passed by him in exercise of his appellate power under the Act.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION - Scope of Delegated Legislation
Scope - Conditions on land grant - Grant imposing onerous conditions over and above those prescribed by the rules under which grant was made - Held, such condition cannot be read down to mean as limiting the condition to the maximum period of non -alienation prescribed by the rules - Nor the grant is bad. See, Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 - Section 5.
Case Referred: 1993(4) Kar. L.J 328 (DB): ILR 1993 Kar 551 (DB).
( 1 ) THIS writ petition before this Court by the purchaser of a granted land is the second round of litigation. The subject-matter land, a extent of 3 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No. 51 of Ganadakatte Village, Channagiri taluk in Davangere District, is a piece of agricultural land which had been granted in favour of one Kariyappa-father of the third respondent - a person belonging to Adi Karnataka Community [scheduled caste] in terms of grant/saguvali chit dated 6-2-1957. It is this land that the grantee had sold in favour of one Kotrappa-father of the writ petitioner. The question is as to whether the said sale transaction is hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act' ).
( 2 ) THE son of the grantee Bhimappa-third respondent herein - had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, praying for invalidation of the sale and for restoration of the land in his favour on the premise that the sale was in violation of the terms of the grant.
( 3 ) THE application was registered and notice was issued to the petitioner, who was in possession of the land. The proceedings culminated in allowing the application in terms of the order dated 29-4-1992 and the sale was held void, as it was in violation of the condition of the grant that the land should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years and therefore directed resumption of the land in favour of the State and to restore it to the legal heir of the original grantee.
( 4 ) THE appeal by the petitioner-purchaser to the Deputy commissioner, having been failed, he had approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W. P. No. 17818 of 2000.
( 5 ) THE said writ petition came to be allowed in terms of order dated 19-7-2000 and the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the deputy Commissioner were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. The reason for the interference was that the authorities had not given a clear and categorical finding that the grant of the land in question was a free grant, in which even alone the condition of fifteen years non-alienation could have been imposed and operated.
( 6 ) ON such remand, the Assistant Commissioner took up the matter for fresh enquiry. The Tahsildar, who had been called upon to produce the relevant grant records, came up with a reply that such grant records were not available in his office and that it could have either been destroyed or sent to some other office for verification purpose etc. The assistant Commissioner, notwithstanding a clear direction by this Court to peruse the records and to record a clear finding with regard to the nature of grant and the terms of the grant, and notwithstanding the mandatory duty enjoined on him in terms of the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, simply rejected the application, holding that as the tahsildar had not submitted the relevant records and the applicant had also not placed any such records to indicate the nature of grant and as such the applicant did not have any interest in the land in question and accordingly he is rejecting the application in terms of the order dated 31-10-2001.
( 7 ) AGGRIEVED applicant pursued the matter by way of appeal to the deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner issued notices to the parties, held a fresh enquiry but was also faced with the same problem of non-availability of records. The Deputy Commissioner appears to have directed the Tahsildar concerned to submit the report regarding the position of the records and the Tahsildar while submitting the report though stated that the original records were not available, had forwarded extracts from the available related records. The Deputy commissioner, after perusal of all such materials which were made available before him and on examining the rival contentions, in terms of the order dated 13-1-2002, a copy
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
