LI L *IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS T:E 3RD DAY OF APRIL 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE A H FAR000 H P NO36O73—76/1993 Between: Guddapa Ningappa Tahsiidar since deceased represented by LR5, 1. Mariyappa. 5/0 Gudda.ppa Tahsiidar aged 60 years 1 r/o Ranebennur Dharwad District 2. Cnoiappa s/o Guddappa Tahsildar aged 55 years 1 P/a Ranebennur District Dharwad, Petitioners (By Sri Madamohan H Kannur - Advocate) And: 1, The state of Karnataka by its Secretary Revenue Depart..ment Vidhana Soudha Bangalore 2. Th.e Assistant Commissioner Dharwad Su.akdivision Dharwad, 3. The Tahsiider Ranet•ennur Taiuk Ranebennur. 2 4 VadiraJ Narayan Naik. Halageri, Major, 0cc: KSRTC Employee r/o Hubli Dharwad Dietrict, S. Yaman Narayan Naik Halageri, Major 9 Dcc: Officer 9 Vijaya Bank r/o Hubli, Dharwad District. 6. Madhav Narayan Naik Halageri, MaJor, 0cc: Clerk 9 working in KEG Department Haven, Haven DisStrict. 7. Raghavendra Narayan Naik Halageni, Major 5 0cc: Private employment rio Bangalore All are represented by their power of attorney holder - Venkatesh Narayan Naik Halageri, Major, 0cc: Agriculture r/o Ra nehe n nur Ranebennur Taluk Haven Dsitrict, Respondents (By Sri F V Patil — Mv for R4 to 7 Sri S S Suttal HOER for RI to PS) Writ petition Is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure—D dated 20/9/1993 passed by respondent N.o 3. This writ pet... ition coming on for hearing before the Court today, Court made the following: In these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed ror quashing of the order passed by the Tahsildar, dated 20/9/1993 and for issue of a writ of mandaaus dIrecting the resondents to consIder the application filed by the petitioners for regularisat i:on of their unat.thorised occupation of the lands in question, The lands in question admittedly belong to the impleading applicants. According to the petitioners, th.eir father was a tenant in reapect of those lands and they have continued to be in possession of the lands. Mel ttedly, th:e petitioners have not filed any application before the Tahsil dar for regularisation of their unauthorised occupancy, On their application, the Tahsildar passed an order dated 20/9/1993 holding.. that the land•s in question are tenanted lands and they vest with the State and against the said order, some of the lmpleading applicants filed W P No,36521/93 and the petitioners filed these brit petitIons, PP N:o,36521/93 was taken up for hearing on 11/9/199? and this Court aliowed the writ kpetition and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and a copy of which is produced in these writ petdtions as per annexure”3. Even though it is mertioned in the copy of the order passed In P p No,36521/93 that the order quashed is dated 29/9/1993, it is not disputed by the... parties that it is the same order produced by the petitioners in these writ petitions —4 - as• per Annexure—D•. in the said writ petition, it was held by this Court thJ the Tahsildar had no I- jurisdiction to deciare the ian:d to be tenana land. Therefore, the first prayer made by the petitioners need not be co•nsidered ln view of the order already passed by this court quashing Ann xure—D, 2. The second prayer of the petitioner is for a writ of n:.andam:us directing the respondents to consider their applications filed before the Taheildar for reguiarisation of their unauthorised occupancy. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the iands• in pucetion are tenane.p lands and on coming into force of th.e amended L..an.d Reforms Act, the lards vest with the Government and since the petitioners are- in continuous possession of the land, their possession should he trea.ted as unauthorised occupation and under the provisions of Section 94—A of the karnataka Land Revenue Act, thei.r possession is entitled to be regularised, According to. the petitioners , when the lands. are vested with the Government on coming into forc;e of the Land Reforms Act, the lands should he deemed to be Government lands and therefore, they are entitled to seek regularisation of their unauthor ised occupation. 3. In this writ petition the petItioners have n t ma e ii I ad g a p1 catts s ye poidet There is no dispute that the impleading applicants are the owners of the lands. The petitioners are sekior u r ao 0 0 n n h p ud fr that tkey vested with the atate Admittedly till tday er d f a tsp et uh i decleting the lana to be tendrted land in view of the same te pctitioers ought to have nw ipi add tte ower f tIe lad erd n the interest at justice, am of the view that the to a CFI a aC t r FO b necessary parties to be impleaded in these writ p ti 10 5. 1 c i p1 ad ng ip iict or is, theretore allowed nd tI iiplaadin a p1 cents a e made as respondents 4 to 2. 4 When there is no deciaraton iiii today from t c ar F I m T ib a w t’ t e pe € ruthriy to declse a land aeran 4 ed lad it has to at presused that t e lard in qoestion hoe not at d it e t ‘a h o i o at s v have produced the i ecord of rights in respect of to a a e a o p r sottt t lands have been cu’tivated b> the owlert, t[emaolvec Howe ocr, t is contended by the I C p r sc f i i t record of rights showing the owners as cultivators n V I f twee ti t ‘ r [ a be cuitiating the iand Under Section 133 of the Land R cxi ct cc a r a i rae entries in the record of rights. As long as there 1 10 e tt I C a u d t r it has to be presumed that the entries found in the r or o r t d st e o s a f ff r Therefore at this stage it cannot be said that tt p 1 0 av e s se n of t lands in question tjhen there is no declaration as stte tier Ut a a a °n t d the petitioners cannot seek regu1arsation cf pr va and he se on pr ye of U p it n cannot be allowed. 5. There is r merit in thir writ pettnn It is ac orC no y sr as 1. JL/ a kd*