Lagama Vs. the Land Tribunal, Chikkodi, Belgaum District and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- section 42 proviso & sugarcane (control) order, 1966: [n. kumar,j] fixing of minimum purchase price - letter written by the commissioner for cane development and director of sugar in karnataka to the deputy commissioners to ensure payment of the higher price for sugarcane to the farmers propriety being questioned held, the sugarcane (control) order, 1966 is a statutory order made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the essential commodities act, 1955, investing the central government with the power to fix the price of sugarcane and direct payment thereof as also the power to regulate the movement of sugar cane. the state government has no power to fix the minimum price for sugarcane higher than the minimum price fixed by the central government. it is a strong arm method adopted by the state government which has no authority of law. it is patently illegal, probably made with the intention of satisfying the farmers at the expense of the rule of law. impugned orders/letters were quashed......this court to pronounce on the merits of the claim. it is open to respondent 3 and incidentally to respondent 4 to press this point before the land tribunal.9. it is laid down by this court in botebagalu nanjappa v state of karnataka, that the tribunal should issue notices not only to the persons who are in fact interested in the land, but also to persons who may appear to be interested in the land.10. in view of the law laid down by this court, the impugned orders as per annexure-g and h are quashed and the matter is remanded to the land tribunal, chikkodi, with a direction to issue notices to the present petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 (since deceased by l.rs) and all concerned and then proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law by holding further enquiry if necessary. it is made abundantly clear again that this order relates only to s. nos. 230 and 230/1.writ petition allowed and the matter remanded as stated herein.the learned government pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for contesting respondent 3 and the learned Government Pleader who has been directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. Respondent 4 since deceased by his 5 L.Rs. Notices served on the L.Rs of respondent 4, but they are unrepresented. Respondent 5 has been served, but he is unrepresented.

2. The learned Government Pleader shows the records received in this case.

3. In this petition two orders passed on 23-7-1976 as per Annexure-G and H have been challenged.

4. As per Annexure-G, the Land Tribunal, Chikkodi, granted occupancy rights to the extent of 1/4 share to respondent 3 Subbanna in S. No. 230 measuring 12 acres 3 guntas (1/4 share in 12 acres 3 guntas) situated in Nagaral village. We are not concerned with grant of occupancy rights in the other S. No. 231 measuring 10 acres 6 guntas.

5. By another order dated 23-7-1976 (Annexure-H) the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the extent of 1/4 share in S. No. 230/1 measuring 6 acres 33 guntas to Narasa Mukund Mali (since deceased by L.Rs) 0/4 share in 6 acres 33 guntas). We are not concerned with grant of occupancy rights in S. No. 231 measuring 10 acres 6 guntas.

6. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased S. No. 230 measuring 6 acres 33 guntas from Siddoji Rao, father of respondent 5-Prithviraja, who was the/then owner. The orders in question have been passed admittedly without impleading petitioner Lagama, the purchaser, as a party. What respondent 3 and respondent 4 did was to show respondent 5 as the owner in Form 7. They did not show the present petitioner Lagama as the owner in Form 7.

7. It is contended by the learned Counsel for respondent 3 that there is inordinate delay of 20 years in filing the present petition. True. The petitioner has averred in the petition that somewhere in 1995 respondent 3 and respondent 4 were trying to sell the property and then he made enquiries in the office of the Land Tribunal and obtained the copies in May 1995 with difficulty. In view of this stand of the petitioner and also bearing in mind that the petitioner was not a party, I am of the opinion, the delay is adequately explained.

8. It is contended by the learned Counsel for respondent 3 that the R.R. entries do not show the name of the purchaser and the R.R. entries have all along been in the names of respondents 3 and 4. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for respondent 3 that respondent 3 has obtained Form 10 having paid premium and the records have been changed. It is not necessary for this Court to pronounce on the merits of the claim. It is open to respondent 3 and incidentally to respondent 4 to press this point before the Land Tribunal.

9. It is laid down by this Court in Botebagalu Nanjappa v State of Karnataka, that the Tribunal should issue notices not only to the persons who are in fact interested in the land, but also to persons who may appear to be interested in the land.

10. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders as per Annexure-G and H are quashed and the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal, Chikkodi, with a direction to issue notices to the present petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 (since deceased by L.Rs) and all concerned and then proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law by holding further enquiry if necessary. It is made abundantly clear again that this order relates only to S. Nos. 230 and 230/1.

Writ petition allowed and the matter remanded as stated herein.

The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.