AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.G. Sabhahit, J.—This Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, dated: 9-1-2006 wherein the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the revision and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of the Land comprised in Sy.No. 190/1 measuring 3 acres 14 guntas and 190/4 measuring 4 acres 5 guntas of Divagi Village, Kumta taluk, Uttara Kannada District. The lands belong to the petitioner''s predecessors who were cultivating the said lands from time immemorial. However, the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 26/8/1951 taken over the possession of the lands under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 on the ground that the lands were fallow and gave the lands to one Sinjanv Simanv Fernandes on lease for a period of 10 years and the ownership of the lands remained with the owners of the land i.e. the predecessors of the petitioners and only the management of the lands in dispute was given to Mamledar Kumta and accordingly mutation entry No. 1206 dated: 26-10-1956 has been made after coming into force of the Act. The said lessee filed form No. 7 for grant of occupancy right, which was rejected by the Land Tribunal and was confirmed by this Court in 45161/1999 dated 15-11-2002 as per Annexure "E" to the Writ Petition and thereafter the petitioners made an application for restoration of the said lands. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the said appeal filed by the petitioners by order dated 20-11-2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed revision before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision holding that even though the application in form No. 7 is rejected, the lessees are in possession of the lands pursuant to the lease and wherefore question of restoring the lands does not arise.
I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that after rejection of form No. 7 filed by the predecessors of 4th and 5th respondent, the petitioners being the owners were entitled to restoration and what was resumed was only the management of the lands and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is erroneous.
I have considered the contentions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
It is clear from the perusal of the material on record that the land was resumed by the Government and the same was leased in favour of predecessor in interest of respondents 4 and 5 and though their application in form No. 7 has been rejected, they continued to be in possession pursuant to lease deed.
Under the circumstances, the question of Revenue Authorities restoring the lands to the petitioners does not arise and the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act would not be applicable as form No. 7 filed by predecessor of respondents 4 and 5 has been rejected and it is for the petitioners to obtain possession of the properties from respondents 4 and 5 by approaching the Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner has also observed in his order that even though form No. 7 has been rejected, the land cannot be restored to the petitioners by the revenue Authorities as the lessees have continued to be in possession of the lease deed and they have continued after the lease period is over and unless the possession is taken in accordance with law, restoration cannot be done by the Revenue Authorities.
Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Writ Petition is disposed of with the above said observations with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court seeking possession of the land from respondents 4 and 5.