Smt. Parvathamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- major port trusts act, 1963 [c.a. no. 38 of 1963]. sections 49-b, 50-a & 50-b: [a.s. bopanna, j]port dues held, it includes only port dues as a category of levy and will not include pilotage charges and berth hire charges. -- section 56: show cause notice regarding short levy bills - notice issued indicating that it has approval of board of trustees - it is not by delegating power but after passing resolution held, show cause notice not invalid for want of competence. -- section 56: notice of payment of charges short levied or erroneously refunded - two years period within which notice is to be issued held, port trust cannot claim benefit of exclusion of time during which earlier writ petitions were pending before court. moreso, when court in earlier writ petition has passed an interim order stating that it would be open to port trust to issue such notices in accordance with law and in compliance with section 56. .....the law in this regard has been laid down by this court in parvatevva v state of karnataka . the tribunal is directed to read this decision and then proceed to dispose of the matter afresh. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands sold after 24-1-1971 should be taken into consideration while passing the order under section 67(1) and not the lands sold prior to 24-1-1971. he relies on a decision in sharanappa basappa dindawar v state of karnataka and others. since thematter is going to be remanded, it is open to the declarant to press this authority into service before the land tribunal.5. hence the impugned order as per annexure-a is quashed. the consequential notice as per annexure-b is also quashed. the matter is remanded to the land tribunal with a direction to issue notices to the petitioner and the government and then proceed to dispose of the matter according to law, if necessary by holding enquiry.the writ petition is allowed and the matter remanded as stated herein.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. As per the impugned order, the Land Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in surplus land to the extent of 61 acres 14 guntas and so it ordered that it should vest in Government and directed the Tahasildar to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the impugned order. It is a highly arbitrary order.

4. Before passing the order in question, the Chairman has not followed the procedure under Rules 24(1) and 17 of the K.L.R. Rules. The law in this regard has been laid down by this Court in Parvatevva v State of Karnataka . The Tribunal is directed to read this decision and then proceed to dispose of the matter afresh. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands sold after 24-1-1971 should be taken into consideration while passing the order under Section 67(1) and not the lands sold prior to 24-1-1971. He relies on a decision in Sharanappa Basappa Dindawar v State of Karnataka and Others. Since thematter is going to be remanded, it is open to the declarant to press this authority into service before the Land Tribunal.

5. Hence the impugned order as per Annexure-A is quashed. The consequential notice as per Annexure-B is also quashed. The matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to issue notices to the petitioner and the Government and then proceed to dispose of the matter according to law, if necessary by holding enquiry.

The writ petition is allowed and the matter remanded as stated herein.