Karnataka High Court
Rangappa vs The Deputy Commissioner Bagalkot ... on 26 August, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26?" DAY OF AUGUST, 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE AJIT J.GUNJz"-ILII IA" ff *'
WRIT PETITIONS No. 17 156/200*?' V' -.
C/W 11774/2008 {KLR3RR;'SURf)
[In W.P.No. 17156 /2007)
I.
BETWEEN:
RANGAPPA
S/0 YAEVIANAPPA HULLKER! A "
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARs._0'£-'C A~3RI§,'!_JVLTlV_JI?.E
R/O BADAMI--58720l 'a_ . ..
DIST BAGALKOT '- '
s;:xN'NAYA~MA,NAPpA .4
S/Q HA.NuMA'P?';x.»HU:,Li3zs;ER: '
AGED ABOUT 70«Y}:AR:,_
occ A_GmcuLT-URE,' _
R/O BADAML587201
3 DIST:BAGA,LKOT
.. 'GADVDEPPA YAMMI.-».P'pA HULLEKER!
V ' AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
'~ , VOCCA/GRJC'U mums
R'O"BVA[2.AM_l--5872O!
" Tnzsr BAGALKOT
HA}~JU}\AAfPPA YAMANAPPA HULLEKERI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE
RIC) BADAMI-58720]
; DIST BAGALKOT
IISALAPPA s/0 KONAP?A OGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC SERVICE,
R/O ADAGAL TQ BADAM!
DIST BAGALKOT
:2:
6. I-IANUMAPPA S/O KONAPPA OGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O ADAGAL TQ BADAMI
DIST BAGALKOT ...PETITIONERS_ _
(BY SRI.V.P.KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT DISTRICT -' "
BAGALKOT I
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAGALKOT SUB-DIVISION '
BAGALKOT
BAGALKOT DISTRICT
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BADAMI TALUK .. R '_ ~ .
BADAMI BAGALKOT DISTRICT I
4. RANGAPPA M/.~.cHAoA:s:'DE»ADBY*:DR,s I
SMT TIPIFA wwA V;/O RANG"ApPA_
AGED ABOUT ?6.,YE;AR'S«.OC'C AGRJCU LTURE
we MACHAOARONI _ "
BADAMI' ' ' V. ~..
DIST B*A,OAL1<O"r_
5. ;RAMANNA S/O RIANGAPPA MACHAGAR
'~".A(3ED ABOUT 5'6«Y.EAIR»s OCC NOT KNOWN
R/(TEVIACE.-IAGAR ONI
., r3AE)AI\/I-I4 ,
" 'DIST»_BIAG'A,LK0T
6; I WSMT 1m;iD;-an/s;wwA SHEKAPPA BHOVIMANI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
" OCC HOUSEHOLD
' we BELUR
' I I TQBADAMI DIST BAGALKOT
S' 7.1 _ SMT LAKSHMAWWA W/O MALIAPPA MATTIKATTI
I "AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD
R/O BELUR
TQ BADAMI DIST BAGALKOT
:3:
8. SMT TULAJAWWA W/O HANUMANTAPPA BAND]
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD
R/O NEAR DURGAWWAN GUDI
MACHAGAR ONE
KOPPAL
DIST KOPPAL
9. RANGAPPA S/O RANGAPPA MACHAGAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC NOT KNOWN
R/O MACHAGAR ONI
TQ BADAMI DIST BAGALKOT
I0. LAXMAPPA S/O RANGAPPA MACIIAGA D
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCC NOT KNOWN .
R/O MACHAGAR ON!
TQ BADAMI
DIST BAGALKOT
ll. RATNAWWA BHARMAPI>~A_I3AIsIDI .4 .
AGED ABOUT 32 vI3ARs~O.cC'HoLIsiJ£IéOi;--D' I 'I
R/ONEA DURGAWWAN GUDI I " '
MACHAGAR ON]
KO?PAL ' '
DV€VV:V§TE<1V()'APF'AL, 7? '
I2. LAKMIDEVIWIO.i3I~IIMR_AO,,D'I;sHPANDD
AGED._ABOUT 5.5 Y"?.Ai'.._S ODCHOUSEHOLD
R/O NANDAWADAOIA _ '
TO HUNAGUND. ...RESPONDENTS
" " _ (I315 £8121';-S.Sv;PATILL ADV' FOR 124-1 1, R 3 SM'I?..K.X/IDYAVATHI, HCGP FOR R1, 2, 3, THISVTVPIDTITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 22? OF.'THE-- CO'NST1TUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE QRDE3R._.:'ANNEXURE--K DATED 27.09.2007 ANNEXURE3 K1 DT.2-2.09.2007 AND ANNEXURE K2 DT.27.09.200'7 ?ASSED BY {AND ETC, (In W.P.N0.1I774/2008) BETWEEN:
1. SMT TIPPAWWA W/O. RANGAPPA MACHAGAR AGED ABOU T 76 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. MACHAGAR ONT, BADAMI DIST BAGA LKOT.
2. RAMANNA sxo. RANGAPPA MACHAGAR @ RONAT5, A AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE RIO. MACHAGAR ON} BADAMI DIST BAGALKOT.
3. SMT RANGAWWA -
w/0. SHEKAPPA BHOVIMANI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS... _ OCC: HOUSEWIFE. ' R/Q.4.BE,VL_UVR,_"' "
BADAMI -- . 4 Di:sT BAGALK-Q--T_._
4. SMT'E{AKSHMA.WW.A~ w/0. MALtT'APP'A_MATT1;<;ATT1 AGED ABOUT s2yEAR_s ;'0C<:.:. HOUSEWVIFE ,_"""«:R/0,KERuR _____ BA»-DAME ' = .. _ E)!STBAC;ALl<_(OT. EMTfTuLA§i.AVw'wA . "Aw/0. :--iA}4AMANTAT»PA BAND] AGED AE;ouT so YEARS " NEAR DURGAWWA TEMPLE, R;'O._MACI-IIGER om, KOPPAL " . DiS"E'KOPPAL.
.45; 'RANGA1=PA ' w/0. RANGAPPA MACHAGAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. MACHAGAR ON] BADAME, DIST BAGALKOT.
LAXMAPPA W/O. RANGAPPA MACHAGAR AGED ABOTU 36 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. MACHAGAR ONE BADAMI DIST BAGALKOT.
SMT RATNAWWA W/O. BHARAMAPPA BAND! AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O. NEAR DURGAWWA TEMPLE NEACHIGER ONI, KOPAL DIST KOPPAL. _ (By Sri: S.P.KULKARNI_, ADV) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGAIKOT = A DISTRECTBAGALKOT. .. ' THE ASSIS'['A;NTaCOMM.l4SSiONE?_R -- BAGALTKOT suBjD_Iv1sI0"r¢_ ' BAGALKOT A ' ._ DIST BAGALKOT.
.THE TAHSILDAR' "
.».{BADGAAM] ' A .
'. BADAM1. TALUK """
D1s'r.EAG;,_u<0T.
VGAl§DEPPA'~.__:~~ Q3/O. Y.-A?MAT'~.5AP§3A HULLIKERI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 0c-1:; AGRICULTURE 31/O.HOSAPETE ONI BADAMI DIST BAGALKOT A AEHANAMAPPA ~s/0. YAMANAPPA HULLEKERI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HOSA?ETE ON? BADAMI DIST BAGALKOT.
6. RANGAPPA S/O YAMANAPPA HULLIKERI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE RIO. LAKSHMINAGAR, BADAMI DIST BAGALKOT.
7. SANNAYAMANNAPPA S/O. HOSUMAPPA HULLIGERI AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. LAKSHMINAGARA BADAMI DIST BAGALKOT.
8. BALAPPA 0.
SK). KONAPPA VAGGANNAVAR _V AGED ABOTU 53 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ADAGAL TALUK BADAMI DIST BAGALKOT ' ?
9. HANUMAPPA H _ S/QKONAPPA VAGGANNA_VA.R AG ED ABOUT' 53 \/.1:ARs'=., 0c__c: AGRIVCULTURE ' _ ' ., R/O. ADAGAI, TALDR IBADAM DIST BAGALKOT. ' :0. SMTLAK'SPIMIDE1.'Vl , w/0.. BHlMR'A~QvDESHPANDE ._ 'AAQED ABOUT 56' av'-«E.«»«~«.:<'s _ '0c'c:Hot;.sEHoLD '~ _ V R'Q.HANDAwADAG: TALUK HUNAGUND. RESPONDENTS {By5.«s2R1';K'fV1.D a{Ai?ATH1, HCGP for R1, 2 and 3, ' sR1.\z,P;K;.:';L1<ARN1 AND sR1.2=;.RA'NTHARAJA, ADVS FOR R4 TO 92 R :0 81.1)) I THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF I '*1*H'E1AC0NsT1TUT10N OF' INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER MADE IN RTS/R/I4/2007-2008, RTS/R/I5/2007-2008, AND ....}€TS:'R/16l2007--2008 ALL DATED 27.09.2007 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, BEING ARBITRARY, "made an appiication 11/3 25 of the Karnataka Land Reforms . ''53' j :7: ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO HOLDING THAT THE LAND HAS VESTED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR HAVING ISSUED DIRECTION TO TAHSILDAR, BADAMI TO TAKE POSSESION TO THE SCHEDULE LAND AS PER SEC20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 (ANNEX-N, P AND Q) V A THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ~PiaELI1SaIi§IAfiYa ' HEARING IN 'E' GROUP, THIS DAY, TI-I FOLLOWING:
ORDERS
1. Both these writ petitions ar'e_ ld'I_sposeld;Aof common order.
2. The parties will Vbe_C:re_fe;§_redIo" their ranking in W.P.No.17156/2007. '~fac§.s '* 'for disposal of these onsv;'ean_Cbe:Stated as under:
The' «land A originally belonged to one e'emr'aoA"De'shpande. It is not in dispute the Venkatesh Eh .llini..€!.l1CSti0n 18 "oy'.l\To.l74 adrheasurirlg 1Df§Da"Ofé§beIongs I A:BVheemrao Deshpande. It is also not in dispute 1:.ha£"llthe land was tenanted and one Rangappa 1\/iachagazf and Parasappa Hanumappa Kollanna were the A tenants of the land. In the year 1971, both the tenants i.e., Riangappa Machagar and Parasappa Hanurnappa Kollanna e.mgwim la &C,as.::val§;I urwjvia E cOIeI.RfIf'«vMAo§E._1'HE (me mgr" 3 0' (2.? «$3. $1 GE;
V. O "' $2. "537" 'V3' Isl?
" '~ _ Pe'vi"':i':t::'iOrgif3V:I'S 1 to ' : 8 : Act (for short 'the Act') proposing to surrender the entire The said application for surrender was granted by extent.
the then Land Tribunal on 14.07.1971. Pursuant to thesaid surrender, the names of both Rangappa Macha'gar*'.i'a.n'dx Parasappa Hanumappa Kollanna were deletedfiiasniuch they had surrendered the land purfsuiaintto3.their_Aiapp1icatior1; and also the order passed bythe to Annexure--D, the name of the..1a'n.d1ord i..e.,* was 0 entered in the revenue. records'. = ii._:Th§3....1and1ordA Deshpande died and thereafter on an the legal heirs of the _theifri'1iaiaire's wereiientered as per Annexure--E. The peti--tioners--c1ai'mV purchased the entire extent of 12 acres pursuage: to two separate registered sale deeds. t..airn to have purchased an extent of 7 pi ipetiiitioners 5 and 6 claim to have purchased the retnainingifiaicres. Both the sale deeds have been executed on the same day ie, on 05.10.2000. The petitioners make andapplieation to enter their names in the revenue records. Respondent N0.3--Tahsi1dar notwithstanding the serious 'M iobjecétion raised by respondents 4 to 12 grants the ..;
application and directs that the names of the petitioners be reflected in the revenue record. Some of the respoiidents filed an appeal before the Assistant however, since the appeal was barred by not entertain the appeal. But, however, revision before the Deputy Coznmiss'ioner The Deputy Commissioner hasiliriecordedii that the legal representatives' "VVRangappa Machagar having not for grant of occupancy righittgduring theflifes .o__£.origina1 tenant and thereafterlieve.i51 Section 7'7--A the benefit of their, being. assuming that they are in possession"eanniotf.be-gextended to them. Nevertheless the DeputyCommission-----r'proceeds on the footing that it is the V respondentsgg wvho are in possession inasmuch as the order of surrender the legal representatives of the original tenant being in possession holds that the land in question would vest with the Government u/s 44 of the Land Reforms Act. Thus, to that extent grants the revision of the respondents and directs the fl 1 ll :
ground that they had perfected their title notwithstanding the order of surrender. He submits that the said suit is dismissed for non--prosecution. He further submits thatgthe impugned order passed by the Deputy Commisspionperi: without jurisdiction inasmuch as the subject p only in respect of the entries in t17.'eHreVen_ue did not have jurisdiction to respondentwlegal representati1roesi.ig ofthei Wtejnantd' continued to be in possessionl'a1id_:'since thejr"i1adv'ihot made an application for grantiiofa_occup'ancvi the land would vest withiithe; "Gove:i*iimentL'-
4. iVVIr.iS..,S§i"'atiii;.""s!earned:icounsel appearing for the legal heirs of original tena.Vnt~...f{achappa Machagar submits that :h,_a£s _is enough. .... niaterial on record to show that ' no'tw_it'hsta_nding the order of surrender the original tenant andvlithereiaf_te:'ithe legai representatives continued to be in possession. He wouid press into service the revenue records it iorthe 'period between 19664998 to buttress his contention iitlriat they continued to be in possession. He submits that : 12 : notwithstanding the original tenant or the legal representatives having not filed an application in Form No.7 or Form No.7--A does not entitle the State in resuming the land inasmuch that is required to be done as copntednipiilatedg 1.1/8 45 (3) of the Act.
5. Smtvidyavathi, learned the impugned order. l A i it V
6. I have perused the neceslsarny" papers. undisputed facts are that there 'F.'.angappaAVvMachagar and Pairasapipa lltiiiunaappa lK0l'l'anna. It is also not in disputethat surrender the land in favour of the landlordDeshpan_de;.i.l~~'ilIt is also not in dispute that they applicat.io_n.vand the said application is granted. iofithe order of surrender is made available at perusal of the order which is dated l4.uC"e7...lv9V7.lll.would Clearly disclose that an application Was 'filled 25 of the un~arnended Act in respect of the land in lAlq1l.i1lelstion. The finding is also recorded to the effect that the V ""reason for surrender is inasmuch as the said land is not :13: fertile and kharab and they are unable to cultivate the land and they are surrendering the same. The reason as is obvious as to why the original tenant . surrender the land. Thus the application the then Land Tribunal and the surre,r1d.e'r landlords is validly made andalso in faitlz'v;andi.ther:efore p is surrendered. Subsequently, has taken place as per Mutationlflinrry repspecti of the land in question indicating order dated 14.07.1971 t§_ier<§y'hi's .x};.;1ic;i~1_"§u£i*ericiér-----and their name is deleteclvhvifrorn' aniudiiiitheir tenancy rights were also deleted. is dated 18.02.1974. It is no doubt tr'ue_Vi'tha: it=_is""hardly about 11 days before the Act carneinto force on 01.03.1974. Nevertheless thait"c.a"I1niot.ibeifaulted. The next document is at Annexure--C wherein gtheiiname of the original tenants continued to be reflectedjin the revenue records in other column other than ffcioluinn No.12. The same was also directed to be deleted oursuant to the order dated 15.07.1977. The more important document is at Annexure--D pursuant to which the :14: name of the originai Iandiord is shown. The subsequent mutation entries relate to the names of they-..1ie'ga1 representatives of the original landiord to be enteieitii other being the purchaser's narne was."'bein:gyient'e.red. Section 25 of the unamended Act i; 'i "25. Surrender of landsby__2teniariti'i(.I shall surrender any and no landlorLi_._";-haiii the iand surrendereti by previous permission' of"the'coui"tI -
:(2i?)i'VJT-"€»'i.'i'.i»f.'.1'$Siil;oi:.*EV1Vi' siiffiselcrtion (1) shall be girantedi such inquiry as may be _,oreseiibed,ut_he=,_i is satisfied that the pinapotsedi "surrender is bonafide and the land does not exceed the extent of land could have resumed from his i under section 14; in other cases, the " I perrnission shall be refused.
(3) Where permission is refused in any case and the tenant gives a declaration in writing flf i
2 15 :
relinquishing his rights in the land, such land shall be deemed to be surplus land and the provisions of section 65 to 79 shall mutatis"-.»p mutandis apply to such land as if such ~ surplus land in excess of the ceiling laid t} section 63 or section 64. i V V '7. Section 25 would speak: land tenant. It puts an embargo onjabtenarxt he' shall not surrender vthe 1anld"i"av.o'ur iof"thei§ landlord without the previous perrn_issi'onlii"it1 the court. The court bwouldplii'riecessa1=i.lj}'v... mean the Land Tribunal has designatediunder the unomeinded Act. Sub section 2 would relate" to the'*p_ern:1iss.lon to be accorded by the Tribunal nndersection 1 after making such enquiry as required and the be satisfied that the proposed surrender is"oonafid.e.i~'and it does not exceed the extent of land which Aplandlordi could have resumed from his tenant under Section it where the permission is refused. Sub section 3 would . _..deal with the refusal of the permission in any case and the PX .' nature and consequences of surrender and that is voluntary. : I6 :
tenant gives a declaration in writing relinquishing his rights in the land, such land shall be deemed to be surplus land and the provisions of section 65 to 79 shall rniitatis mutandis apply to such land as if such land land in excess of the ceiling laid down K V' section 64. Indeed a reading of the provis_ioi--ns indicate that the Act of surrender and act and there is no comp"u_ls'ion. The iorder «passed on V the application 11/ s 25:yvould'ciea'rly*indicatethat it is a voluntary surrender and reasoenliibeingievthat -the tenants are not ina"toficiiltivateiiithe lands having regard to the infertility as kharab. Indeed the order on the said apip1icatiQ'§=. Wouildiiclearly indicate that surrender is andv-mbonafide and is not by way of any 'con'1pt1l'sVio'n;{£l"i1is should take care of the observations and the iifindingirishonld take care of interpretation of Section 25 and the application filed was bonafide. All that the Tribunal has to ascertain is whether the tenant understands :l7:
8. This takes us to the next question as to whetvheriiaiter surrender the landlord came into possession of question. When posed with a question as to _ any specific mode as to how possesisioniiisftakenvoihen» is sought to be surrendered,lnoneiofhthe the Government Pleader wereiliablei to any particular mode is pre:scribe_-sills"jg.iit,ilViiV'h'oiweverVioniva slightly deeper probe Rule 9 regarding the surrender of that Rule 9 of the unamendeld" the procedure of surrerideirv iiiiperusal of Rule 9 also does not gi\ieyain.i_ procedure regarding taking of the possession. V it prescribe and lay down Rules ..ymakAing~-Han' application and as to the enquiry.
V In"deedv,_in_ide'ntica1 situation where an application is made for'resumptic5h under Section 14, certain positive procedure is prescribed inasmuch as for taking possession. Sub Section 5 of Section 14 would clearly indicate that after the' resumption order is passed, a certificate of possession is 9 "required to be issued by the competent authority. It is only .54' i /L : 18: then the surrender and possession is recorded. But, however, that is not the case here. As has been observed, the surrender itself is a voluntary act which does-_hn_ot contemplate any mode of taking possession. _ true that a feeble attempt is made by I_\ftr; counsel for the respondent that a mahazar a..m11s'tlb.efo.re.l 'learned '= possession is taken. But, however, noiprovisi'or1gAi.,s pointed _ out. Thus, it remains only a contention ionlyvla wishful contention. This ta1{e.s'«.us .'_lAne,xtV" tol._th«e impugned order passed by the Deputy Comvmi,ss.ion:er.-'V.it' it
9. _n'o_ti'eeci* -that the Tahsildar on an application rnade"--by"the p'e..titioners was obliged to enter their name." ..,But,hovvever called for objections from other Viiinteirested persons. The legal representatives of the original tenant Machagar filed objections. The Tahsildar has~._f0t3.__nd.,that the objections are untenable on more than one ground inasmuch as at no point of time, the original it tenant nor the legal representatives had evinced any interest l V. setting at naught the entries made in favour of the original M :21: the suit property stood rejected albeit for default. Another factor, which has to be noticed is that they set up theii'r._,tir,1e by adverse possession and based their title The conduct of the original tenant andbalso ,thev'le:galll'hevirs the original tenant is also required,' to,'-be original tenant died sometirne'iin.__the ?()O6',: not ; make an application in Form for of occupancy rights even though he than a quarter century after hisA,surrend.er._andV.aiter".the'arnended Act came into force. I-lei allsoldoes notimake 'afiv-application u/s 77--A seekingllolccupeancvlfgrights," after his death, the legal heirs have not .,in.i;erest in making an application assuming that"they_ hia_ve'~~~t'ime to make such an application. do notflquestion the entries made in the revenue pi recordsv..infa'vour of the original landlord i.e., fleshpande and deletion of"fL'jhe'ir name from the revenue records. Thus, at every point of time, the original tenant or his legal heirs are lf_*~ lagging behind and have accepted the entries in the revenue records.
' W indicatedtabove.
:22:
11. Another factor which would weigh against thehlegal heirs of original tenant is that another companionltenant who had also surrendered the land in favour 'origi_nal_ _ landlord has not chosen to file an application"'ivn.::§?Qrrr1 No.7' seeking occupancy rights which a'ei.}ao.i,inter"tl*3ei« fact that there was a valid sjurrender ancl'V"theV'_v_orig';inal landlord had come into possessviionv.' ofjthe View that the impugned' ..4_.oVrde15': the Deputy Commissioner/ Revisiona_l_ ._ Auvtflbflity be sustained. Hence, the fO113bWi':[~g'Qrd:Cr is "f)assed:"
aiidwesdi. The impugned order at AnneXuxre--:K, Kl ,~in w.:P.No.17156/2007 and Annexuresi;N.., in w.P.No.i1774/2008 stand All inVter'irn~'orders granted in both the petitions Vs.ta'nrd._dissol'v=eVd.---.
12. issued and made absolute to the extent :23:
13. As the main matters itself are disp(3s.e:{:i«._'»_T'~Qvf, Misc.W.60224/2009 filed in w.P.No.17156/2QG'f%."§c;és._fn;c..{'._ survive for consideration and the sams stanc1s"d'i,sposéd Cf. " "
" <,JUDGEs."
Jm/~ :24: AJGJ: WP NO.17156/2006 C/w W.P.No.11774/23OE3"*--.p 16.09.2009 ORDER ON MISC.W.NO.61904/2000.
An application is moved :'for' c0r'reetj¢fie~._~A.V'cvf:
typographical error inasrni;rc:1f*i~w..Vas Athe' the " 0' extent of the land,-_ is as'~.."S3}.No.174 measuring 12 acres" i4'r1Vs__t'ead,fé)f:' 1'73 measuring 12 acres 12 g11;nras".
NecVess;ary "be carried out. It shall be reatxi-as«.Sy.Nc'.:if?3'rae'as13.ring 12 acres 12 guntas. Q A.pp1icatiorist'arids disposed of. sailx REGE kmv