Back
2010 Supreme(Kar) 438
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH
Doddegowda
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore & Another
Decided on : 05-04-2010
Writ Petition No. 5182 of 2008 (LR)
For the Petitioner:Dilip Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ramachandra Naik High Court Government Pleader.
Headnote:KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 77-A & Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, Rule 26-C(1): [Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J] Grant of land vested in State Government as on 1-3-1974 - Application in Form 7-A filed by one claiming to be tenant - Held, As land in question was not found to be tenanted as on 1-3-1974 to vest in State Government and applicant had failed to establish his claim of tenancy, his application, was rightly rejected by authorised officer. However, if applicant has been in open, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of land, ever since 1974, as claimed by him, it is open to him to seek relief of declaration of title on basis of adverse possession, from Civil Court.
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent 1. Notice to respondent 2 is dispensed with.
2. Petitioner is challenging the order of the Competent Authority/Assistant Commissioner, Mysore dated 19-7-2006 and also the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, dated 21-8-2007 in confirming the said order as per Annexures-C and D respectively, in rejecting the Form 7-A filed by the petitioner in respect of the property in Sy. No. 43/3 measuring 3 acres and 22 guntas situated at Yelwal Kaval Village.
3. Heard.
4. According to the petitioner, petitioner’s grandfather was cultivating the land in question under the 2nd respondent and after his death, petitioner’s father and later petitioner himself continued the cultivation and possession of the property as a tenant. Thereafter, he purchased the said land during the year 1974 from the 2nd respondent, the then Maharaja of Mysore. He filed Form 7-A claiming occupancy rights, but the same was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal as well as by the Competent Authority on the ground that as on 1-3-1974 the lands were not noted as tenanted lands and even in column 12(2) in RTC the name of the petitioner was not shown and also nothing has been mentioned as to payment of rent/gutta to the landlord etc., and also no prima facie material is produced.
5. Annexure-A has been produced by the petitioner to show that, the then Maharaja of Mysore has issued a letter to the effect that the land has been sold in favour of the petitioner and the same could not be registered in his favour since the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 came into effect from 1973-74. If the petitioner is continuous possession of the land in question openly and uninterruptedly as per the statutory requirement and on verification, if it is found that letter issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent at Annexure-A is genuine, the petitioner could very well seek for declaration before the Civil Court.
6. With the above observations, petition is disposed of.
Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.
