(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 48298/2004 and confirm the order passed by the Authorized Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad and etc.)
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge s order, dated 10.11.2014 passed in W.P. No. 48298/2014.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that six acres of land in Block No. 422 of Thadakoda village, Dharwad Taluk, Dharwad District were granted to the appellant and his father, Yallanagowda Patil by the Assistant Commissioner by his order, dated 08.04.2003. The respondent No.3 filed Appeal No. 667/2003 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ( KAT for short). On finding that the appellant and his father were not eligible to the grant of land, the KAT, by its order, dated 02.11.2004 (Annexure-H) set aside the Assistant Commissioner s grant-order. The KAT s order was challenged by the appellant and his father, Yallanagowda Patil by filing W.P.No.48298/2014. On the learned Single Judge dismissing the said writ petition by his order, dated 10.11.2014, this appeal is filed by Gowdappagowda Patil (petitioner No.1).
3. Sri Suresh Hudedagaddi, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the learned Single judge and the KAT have not taken into account the partition in the family of the appellant on 19.07.1979. He submits that by virtue of the said partition arrangement only 20 guntas fell to the share of the appellant. Therefore the appellant is eligible to the grant of 3 acres of land, so submits his learned counsel.
4. Sri C.S. Patil, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that as on the date of entering into the partition arrangement, the appellant was 8 years old. He submits that the holdings of the appellant s father as on the date of the grant- order are as follows:
Guddappa Gouda Patil
|298 as per the RTC for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04||Tadakod village, Garag Hobli, Dharwad Taluk.||13-39|
|482 as per the RTC for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04||Tadakod village, Garag Hobli, Dharwad Taluk,||2-33|
|477 as per the RTC for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04||Tadakod village, Garag Hobli, Dharwad Taluk.||00-30|
|222 as per the RTC for the year 2002-03 and 2003-04||Tadakod village, Garag Hobli, Dharwad Taluk.||00-05|
|422||Tadakod village, Garag Hobli, Dharwad Taluk.||06-00|
6. In exercise of its wisdom, the Legislature made the provision for the grant of land in certain cases. Section 77A(1) of The Karnataka Land Reforms Act,1961 reads as follows:
77A. Grant of land in certain cases: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the Deputy Commissioner, or the [or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf] is satisfied after holding such enquiry as he deems fit, that a person.
(i) was, immediately before the first day of March, 1974 in actual possession and cultivation of any land not exceeding one unit, which has vested in the State Government under section 44 and
(ii) being entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land under section 45 or 49 has failed to apply for registration of occupancy rights in respect of such land under sub-section (1) of section 48A within the period specified therein, and
(iii) has continued to be in actual possession and cultivation of such land on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997,
-he may [ x x x x x ] grant the land to such person subject to such restrictions and conditions and in the manner, as may be prescribed.
(Provided that the land so granted together with the land already held by such person shall not exceed 2 hectares or D class of land or its equivalent thereto.)
7. The afore-extracted proviso to Section 77A(1) prescribes the outer extent of the land holding. The land already held by the applicant along with the granted land cannot exceed two hectares of 'D' class land. In the instant case the land holdings of the appellant s father, excluding the granted land, aggregates to 17 acres 27 guntas. If the granted lands are added to the same, it comes to 23 acres 27 guntas.
8. Now the question that arises for our consideration is whether the reversal of the land-grant of 3 acres in favour of the appellant is justifiable?
9. The appellant claims that the family partition took place on 19.07.1979. It is his case that, by virtue of the said partition arrangement, he holds only 20 guntas of land. The said partition is unbelievable and untenable, to say the least. The appellant was 8 years old at the time of entering into the said partition arrangement. Even when he was only 8 years old, he has signed the partition deed. It is not even shown in the partition deed that he is represented by his minor guardian and his father. Further, the said document does not bear any date also. We are only going by the date of the purchase of the stamp-paper. It is not known why only 20 guntas were allotted to the share of the appellant. It is also worthwhile to notice that the said partition deed is not acted upon, as no corresponding changes in the entries in the record of rights in respect of the land in question have taken place.
10. The appellant has stated that he has been cultivating the land ever since he started living separately. He has also shown that he has been cultivating the land for the last 40 years. Form No.7-A is filed in 1989. As on the material date of 01.03.1974 he was only three years old. In Form No.7-A nowhere he has stated when exactly or in which year he was inducted into the possession of the land in question. For obvious reasons, the appellant s father has not filed the appeal.
11. That apart, the holders of large extent of the land cannot confer entitlement on their sons and daughters by creating a partition deed. If such Form No.7-A applications are allowed on the basis of doubtful and untenable partition arrangements, it would defeat the very purpose of making the benevolent provision for the distribution of surplus Government lands. The end beneficiaries of such progressive legislation are the landless agriculturists.
12. Not finding an iota of merit, much less bonafides, we dismiss this appeal. No order as to costs.