Bhimsya and Others vs Mahadevi and Others

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—It is the case of the petitioners that one Revansiddappa Doddappa Biradar of Tavarked village of Sindagi taluka was holding 126 acres 33 guntas in various survey numbers. He filed Form No. 11 under section 66 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act that his family consists of 1st wife Kallawwa, 2nd wife Danawwa and two unmarried daughters. His son died in the year 1963 leaving behind his wife. That out of the 126 acres 33 guntas taking into account the entitlement of all family members there is no excess land. That 63 acres 23 guntas was gifted to his daughters at the time of their marriage in terms of mutation entry No. 701 dated 27.5.1973. That if the share of Kamalabai, the daughter in law 69 acres 16 guntas was held to be the excess land and the same has been taken possession of in Sy. No. 127. Therefore, in terms of the declaration the family holds the lands well within the prescribed limit. Based on said declaration, the Special Tahasildar has partly accepted the statement and took possession of 14 acres 38 guntas in Sy. No. 27/3 as per the order dated 26.2.1973. Aggrieved by the same Revensiddappa filed Writ Petition No. 3050/1978 before the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 30.6.1983. Writ Appeal No. 1806/1983 was filed and the appellate authority was constituted. Hence the matter was remanded therein. The appellate authority was subsequently abolished. Hence Civil Petition No. 5768/1991 was filed before the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka and the same was converted and renumbered as Writ Petition No. 30502/1993. The same was dismissed by the order dated 1.3.2000. As the Writ Petition was dismissed, the Tahasildar took a decision for disposal of the said land under section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. He called for applications. The petitioners'' application was considered. They were asked to pay the requisite price in favour of the Government. The same was paid. The name of the petitioners was entered in the Record of Rights. After the land was granted, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein filed an application for recalling the order passed in W.P. No. 30502/1993. The said application was allowed on 7.1.2003. The order passed by the Special Tahasildar holding the excess land was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter the Writ Petitioners herein filed W.P. Nos. 5703-5709/2003 which was allowed on 24.6.2003 by quashing the order dated 7.11.2003 passed in W.P. No. 30502/1993. A direction was issued to the legal representatives of deceased 1st respondent to implead the grantees and thereafter disposed off the case on merits. Thereafter W.P. No. 30502/1993 was considered on merits. It was held that the Tribunal had to issue notice to the grantees. On that ground the matter was remitted. Thereafter the present order is passed by the Land Tribunal holding that the respondents do not hold excess land. Aggrieved by the same, the grantees have filed this petition.

The petitioners are absent. Heard learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Government Advocate.

The Tribunal while passing the impugned order kept in mind the various members of the family. It cannot be said that there is an excess holding by the respondents. Since the erstwhile family consists of Reveansiddappa, his 1st wife Kallawwa, 2nd wife Dannavva, two unmarried daughters and a daughter-in-law, they would be entitled to a far greater extent that what has been declared. Therefore, the finding of the Tahasildar that there is no excess holding by the respondents is just and appropriate. In view of the large extent of the family members, each one is entitled to hold land The Tribunal has calculated the extent of land that each family member could hold. The same has been rightly construed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly held that there is no excess land. Under these circumstances, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Rule discharged.