Karnataka High Court
Adiveppa Shivappa Mattur vs Tahsildar on 2 February, 1990
Equivalent citations: ILR1990KAR879, 1990(1)KARLJ399
JUDGMENT K.A. Swami, J.
1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the order passed in W.P. No. 10053/1983. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners (appellants herein) sought for quashing the order dated 30th March 1982 passed by the Tahsildar, Shirahatti in WIN.PSR. 74. That order was passed in the purported exercise of the power under clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 as amended by Karnataka Act No. 13/1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that as the regrant proceeding is pending, the petitioners are not entitled to protect their possession. The learned Single Judge has also followed his earlier decision dated 24-7-1985 in W.P. Nos. 15040 and 15041/1981, Rama Reddy v. Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is that the pendency of the regrant proceedings cannot be pleaded as a just cause to obstruct the summary eviction under Rule-5A(iii) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Rules.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are: That the land in question is S.No.24/2B of Amarapur village, Shirahattt Taluk, Dharwad District, measuring 4 acres. It is a Patilki Inam land. Thus it is governed by the provisions of the Act. Respondents-2 and 3 are the holders of the village office to which the land in question was assigned. Respondents-2 and 3 sold the land in question to the appellants under a registered sale deed dated 15-2-1973. Even prior to the sale, occupancy price was paid into the State Treasury. An application for regrant of the land in question was also filed. It is not in dispute that the said application is still pending and it has not been disposed of. On these facts, the learned Single Judge has held that a mere pendency of an application for regrant does not amount to 'just cause', therefore, summary eviction cannot be permitted.
3. A Division Bench of this Court in N.H. RAMACHANDRIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, W.A. No. 2020 of 1985 DD 2-8-1988 has held as follows:
"The appellant is the purchaser or 2 acres 20 guntas of land in S.No. 151 of Hanumanahalli village, Thondebhavi Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk. Respondents-4 to 9, inamdars, are the vendors. They made an application for the regrant. It is not disputed before us that with regard to the area measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, the regrant application of the inamdars (respondents 4 to 9) is pending consideration and has not still been decided. It is not disputed by Mr. S.V. Jagannath, learned State Counsel, that in case regrant application of the respondents is allowed, then, the appellant is entitled to remain in possession of the land. Without going into the merits of the controversy, in the interest of justice, we feel that it would be appropriate if the regrant application is first decided and thereafter action is taken against the appellant in the light of the decision in the regrant application. Until then, the appellant is entitled to remain in possession of the land in dispute. In case the regrant application of respondents A to 9 is dismissed, the authorities shall be at liberty to evict the appellant in accordance with law and in case the regrant application is allowed, the appellant's possession would be valid.
3. Consequently, we allow this appeal to this extent that the Competent Authority shall decide the regrant application filed by respondents 4 to 9 which is pending consideration before it, in accordance with law and till final decision is given on that application, the possession of the appellant shall not be disturbed."
4. In addition to this, it is also relevant to notice that when an application for regrant is filed, there is a statutory obligation on the authority exercising the power under the Act to consider and decide the same. In a case where on granting the application filed for regrant, the authority becomes disabled or disentitled, to exercise the power under Section 7 of the Act, it is the duty of the authority exercising the power under the Act to decide the regrant proceeding first. If the authority exercising the power under the Act is permitted to proceed with the summary eviction under Section 7 of the Act without deciding the application filed for regrant, the valuable right accrued to the vendee to perfect his title in the event the regrant takes place will be defeated. At any rate, the State should not be allowed to take such a recourse because the object of the Act is not only to abolish the village offices but also to regrant the land appertaining to the village office to the holders of the village office in addition to other objects. Therefore, to permit the authority to keep back the regrant proceedings and proceed with the eviction proceedings would result in permitting the authority to defeat the very object of the Act and further to defeat or render infructuous the application filed for regrant of the land because once the eviction takes place under Section 7 of the Act, the question of regranting the land under Seccion 5 or 6 of the Act does not arise because in such an event Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act comes into operation. Further, in similar cases, as already referred to above, it is held that it is just and necessary to stay the eviction proceedings and consider the regrant application filed for regrant of the land appertaining to the village office. In this view of the matter, we hold that the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 15040 and 15041/1981 dated 24-7-1985 is not correct and does not lay down the law correctly. As such the same is hereby over-ruled.
5. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order dated 3-9-1985 in W.P. No. 10053/ 1983 is set aside. The order dated 30-3-1982 bearing No.WTN.PSR.74 passed by the Tahsildar, Shirahatti produced as Annexure-A in the Writ Petition is quashed. The Tahsildar, Shirahatti, who is the authority empowered under the Act to consider the application filed for regrant of the land in question is directed to first consider and decide the application filed by respondents 2 and 3 for regrant of the land in question and then proceed with the eviction proceeding in the event the application for regrant does not succeed and that order becomes final. On the contrary, if the regrant takes place and that order becomes final, the Tahsildar has to regularise the sale of the land in question in favour of the appellant on collecting the amount equivalent to 15 times the assessment.