ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ,

vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄJ¯ï.Dgï.J¥sóÀ (JA) L.J£ï.J 9/98-99

CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ/ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ « JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ1.gÀAUÀ¥Àà ©£ï £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà2.ªÉAPÀl¥Àà ©£ï aPÀ̺À£ÀĪÀÄAvÀAiÀÄå3. ²æà ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï zÁ¸À¥Àà ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄ: 3(J). ²æêÀÄw aPÀÌwªÀÄäPÀÌ

3(©). ²æà UÉÆëAzÀgÁdÄ

3(¹). ²æà ®PÀë÷ät4. UÀAUÀtÚ ©£ï £ÀAd¥Àà

1. vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ. EvÀgÀgÀÄ2.²æà ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà

ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄ:2(J) ²æêÀÄw ¸Ë¨sÁUÀåªÀÄä2(©) ZÀAzÀæPÀĪÀiÁgï2(¹)ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï2(r)ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ2(E)£ÁUÀgÁdÄ2(J¥sï) ¸ÀÄzÀ±Àð£ï

1 £Éà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 (J), (©), (¹) ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ °TvÀ DUÀÆåðªÉÄAmïì ¥Àæw:-

1. PÉù£À ¸ÀéwÛ£À »£É߯É:-PÁåvÀìAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è£À 5 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ²æà UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ E£Á«ÄÛ d«ÄãÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß J¯Áè ¥ÀPÀëPÁgÀgÀÄ ¤«ðªÁzÀªÁV M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è JgÀqÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ®UÀ HzÀĪÀªÀgÁVzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ZÁPÀj PÁgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

Page 1 of 69

ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¤«ðªÁzÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

2. ªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÀ PÉøÀÄ:- ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è MAzÀ£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄ vÀAzÉ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà, ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄ aPÀÌ¥Àà wªÀÄäAiÀÄå £ÀªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§ AiÀÄdªÀiÁ¤PÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ªÁgÀ (¥sóÀ¸À°£À°è PÉ®ªÀÅ »¸ÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÉÃt gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ) ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 100 ªÀµÀð »A¢¤AzÀ®Æ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À PÉøÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀiÁUÀ°Ã CªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄì DUÀ°Ã d«Ää£À°è ZÁPÀj ªÀiÁqÀzÉ, ªÁ®UÀ HzÀĪÀ ZÁPÀj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PËëjPÀ ªÀÈwÛ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ¥sÀ¸À°£À°è CzÀð ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À PÉøÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1£Éà ªÁ¢ gÀAUÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ PÁåvÀìAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è £À d«Ää£À°è 1 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ, 2£Éà ªÁ¢ ªÉAPÀl¥Àà 1 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ, 3 £Éà ªÁ¢ 2 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉ »ÃUÉ 5 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄäUÉ UÉÃt CfðAiÀÄ wêÀiÁð£ÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÁ¢ 1,2,3 gÀªÀgÀ PÉøÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ ªÁ¢ JgÀqÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀÆtð d«ÄãÀÄ jAUï gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÀ 08 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, 1 JPÀgÉ 12 UÀÄAmÉ ºÁ° ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀħªÀ zÀ°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÀ 15 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁ° 3 £Éà ªÁ¢ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄìzÁgÀgÀ ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°è 2 -00 JPÀgÉ F jÃwAiÀiÁzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

Page 2 of 69

3. d«ÄãÀÄ «ªÀgÀ:-

vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, HrðUÉgÉ ºÉÆç½, PÁåvÀìAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄ. ¸À.£ÀA. 13

¥Ánð

¸À.£ÀA

PÉèêÀÄÄ «¹ÛÃtð

¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£ÀªÁVgÀÄ ªÀÅzÀÄ

G½PÉ

¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ

¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ

GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ

zÀQëtPÉÌ

1£Éà ªÁ¢

1-20 0-08 1-12 PÁåvÀìAzÀæ ¢AzÀ PÉ.ªÀÄqÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ

PÁåvÀìAzÀæ ¢AzÀ ±ÉnÖ ºÀ½î gÀ¸ÉÛ

ªÀĸÀÛUÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wgÀĪÀÄ®AiÀÄå £ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ

jAUï gÀ¸ÉÛ

2£Éà ªÁ¢

1-20 1-20 E®è PÁåvÀìAzÀæ ¢AzÀ PÉ.ªÀÄqÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ

PÁåvÀìAzÀæ ¢AzÀ ±ÉnÖ ºÀ½î gÀ¸ÉÛ

gÀAUÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ

3£Éà ªÁ¢ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁ gÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ

3£Éà ªÁ¢

2-15 0-15 2-00 PÁåvÀìAzÀæ ¢AzÀ PÉ.ªÀÄqÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ

PÁåvÀìAzÀæ ¢AzÀ ±ÉnÖ ºÀ½î gÀ¸ÉÛ

jAUï gÀ¸ÉÛ PÁåvÀìA

zÀæ ¢AzÀ ±ÉnÖ ºÀ½î gÀ¸ÉÛ

4. F PÉøÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ §gÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄAa£À »£É߯É:-vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå L.J£ï.J(AiÀÄÄ.J¯ï.Dgï.JA) 150+150 (J) /1979-80 gÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 06-01-1982 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è

Page 3 of 69

JgÀqÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ KPÀ¥ÀQëÃAiÀĪÁV ¸Áé¢üãÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀgÁªÀIJð¸ÀzÉ DzÉñÀ«wÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÉñÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CvÀÄgÁvÀÄgÀªÁV JgÀqÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 (PÁåvÀìAzÀæ), ¸ÀªÉð£ÀA§gï 2 (§rݺÀ½î), ¸ÀªÉð£ÀA§gï 192(ªÉÄÊzÁ¼À CªÀiÁä¤PÉgÉ) d«ÄäUÉ SÁvÉ ¥ÀºÀt ªÀiÁr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀÄAzÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÆ C®èzÉ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjªÀvÀð£ÉUÀÆ ¤AiÀĪÀĨsÁ»gÀªÁV ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁ° £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢üãÀvÉUÀÆ zÀPÉÌ vÀgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 3£Éà ªÁ¢ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ §UÉÎ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è jmï CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß (15303/1985) ¸À°è¹ ¸ÀzÀj ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÝwUÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ªÀÄzÀåAvÀgÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉUÉ zÀPÉÌ vÀgÀzÀAvÉ DzÉò¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ 04-08-1986 gÀ°è DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁr ¯ÁåAqï C¦Ã¯ÉÃmï læ§Æå£À¯ï (f¯Áè ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½) UÉ PÉøÀ£ÀÄß AiÀÄvÁ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¸ÀzÀj ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ DzÉñÀ¢AzÀ ¨Á¢vÀgÁzÀ F PÉù£À 4£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀiÁzÀ UÀAUÀtÚ£ÀªÀgÀÄ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå 5168/1982 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå 31908/1981 £ÀªÀÄVAvÀ®Ä ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¸À°è¹ ¸ÀzÀj ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 20-12-1983 gÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ªÀÄgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ §A

Page 4 of 69

¢vÁzÀgÀÆ C°èAiÀÄÆ §zÀ¯ÁzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrUÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV ªÀÄzÀåPÉÌ ¤AwgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀ°è «¼ÀA§ªÁzÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥ÁnðUÁgÀgÀÄ C£ÉÃPÀ ¹ªÀ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹.Dgï.¦.¹ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¯ï.J.¹ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ªÁådåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀªÀgÁV vÀªÀÄä ¸Áé¢üãÀvÉAiÀÄ£Àß ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ PÁAiÀÄÄÝPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ.

£ÀAvÀgÀ C¦Ã®Ä ¥Áæ¢PÁgÀzÀ°è (¨sÀƸÀÄzÁgÀuÉ C¦Ã®Ä ¸ÀASÉå: 639/1986) «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉAiÀĪÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è §zÀ¯ÁzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrUÀ¼À°è zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£Á«ÄÛ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÁ ¥Áæ¢üPÁj f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ JAzÀÄ WÉÆõÀuÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ 09-11-1998 jAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÁQ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼À ¹zÁÝAvÀzÀAvÉ, UÉÃt CfðAiÀÄÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÁÝUÀ CzÀÄ J¯Áè CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÆß MlÄÖUÀÆr¹ ¤zÀðj¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ ¹zÁÝAvÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÉƸÀgÀÆ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¸ÀzÀj UÉÃt CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MlÄÖ UÀÆr¹ ¤zÀðj¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£À GzÀÈvÀ ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ®Ä E°è PɼÀUÉ AiÀÄvÁ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀzÀ ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

A Division Bench of Karnataka high Court in the case of Krishna Shetty and

Ors. v. Land Tribunal, Somwarpet and Ors., ILR 1979 Kar. 1681, has held

that once an application is duly made for registration of occupancy within the

extended time for making such applications, the Land Tribunal cannot refuse

Page 5 of 69

to consider that application on the ground that it has already disposed of the

earlier application made by some other person in respect of the same land. In

such an event, the Land Tribunal can consider the later application under

Section 48-A by re-opening its earlier decision on the earlier application and

to consider both those applications together and decide the matter afresh.

In the case of Basappa Gurusangappa v. Land Tribunal, Badami and Ors.,

1979(2) Kar. L.J. 370, a Division Bench of Karnataka high Court has held

that even if one of the rival applicants had filed his application earlier and the

Tribunal had granted him occupancy right in respect of the land and

subsequently another applicant makes an application within the time-limit

provided by Section 48-A in respect of the same land, the Tribunal is bound

to consider the later application by setting aside its earlier order and

consider both the rival applications.

In the case of Mahaveer Chambanna Kallimani and Ors. v. State of

Karnataka and Ors., , ILR 1996 KAR 3646Karnataka high Court has again

reiterated that when two applications were pending before the Tribunal,

both the applications are required to be considered together and if necessary

by setting aside the order granting one of those applications on an earlier

occasion.

F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢üñÀgÁzÀ J¸ï. C§ÄÝ¯ï £ÀfÃgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÊ.J¸ï. gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀægÁªï (ILR

2005 KAR 2111) PÉù£À°è G¯ÉèÃT¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

5. ªÁ¢UÀ¼À CfðAiÀÄ »£É߯É:- ¢£ÁAPÀ 31-12-1986 gÀ°è ²æà ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå, gÀAUÀtÚ, ªÉAPÀl¥Àà J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£Á«ÄÛ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É -1 CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, HrðUÉgÉ ºÉÆç½, PÁåvÀìAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è MlÄÖ 5 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉ ¥ÉÊQ

Page 6 of 69

PÀæªÀĪÁV 2 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉ, 1 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ, 1 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ ²æà UÉÆÃ¥Á® PÀȵÀÚ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ E£Á«ÄÛ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£Á«ÄÛ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀ ºÀQÌ£À°è UÁæAmï ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ «£ÀAw¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

CzÀPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀ 08-01-1987 gÀ°è vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ zÁjvÀ¦à¸ÀĪÀ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr £ÀªÀÄÆ£É -7 gÀ UÉÃt Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À ¤Ãr DzÉñÀ §A¢®è JAzÀÄ zÁjvÀ¦à¸ÀĪÀ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj »A§gÀºÀ ¹AzÀÄvÀéªÀ®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÃt Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ vÁjÃRÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï G¯ÉèÃR«gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ° ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ PÀqÀvÀzÀ°è PÁuÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ, CzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÀ¹AiÀÄĪÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ E¯ÁèªÁV¹zÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÀªÁV CjvÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÁ°Ã£À «µÀAiÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀĪÀ zÁR¯É ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

ºÁUÉAiÉÄà ¸ÀzÀj vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀ »A§gÀºÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è jmï Cfð ¸ÀA. 8686/1991 ¸À°è¹zÀ F ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀªÁV ªÉÄÃ¯É G¯ÉèÃT¹zÀ §¸À¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀ PÉù£À wÃ¥ÀÄð CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¹ ¥Á®£É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉñÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. «¥ÀAiÀiÁð¸ÀªÉAzÀgÉ E°èªÀgÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà gÉ«£ÀÆå C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß ¥Á®£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ««zÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á«ÄïÁV ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ªÀAa¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ ««zÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¨ÁQ

Page 7 of 69

EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢UÀ¼À Cfð £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-1 ¤«ðªÁzÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¸ÀzÀj »AzÉ £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ J¯Áè ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ §A¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CAvÀºÀ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ PÀqÀvÀ E®èªÁV¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, PɼÀºÀAvÀzÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §æµÀÖ PÁAiÀÄðUÀ½AzÀ F ªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ £ÉÆêÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÉ DzÀgÀÆ, £ÁªÀÅ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤UÀ¢vÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹®è ªÉAzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÁzÀªÀÇ C®è vÀPÀgÁgÀÆ C®è, ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlzÀ «ºÀAUÀªÀĪÀÇ C®è JA§ÄzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÁzÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F §UÉÎ gÉ«£ÀÆå C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄPÁ°Ã£À zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå ±ÉæõÀ× £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wæð£À GzÀÈvÀ ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ®Ä E°è PɼÀUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

Godhra Electricity Co.Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of Gujarat And AnotherAIR

1975 SC 32 “A Court is not prevented from looking into the subsequent

conduct or acting of parties to find out the meaning of the terms of a

document when there is a latent ambiguity. Extrinsic evidence to determine,

the effect of an instrument is permissible when there remains a doubt as to

its true meaning and evidence of the acts done under it is a safe guide to the

intention of the varies, particularly when acts are done shortly after the date

of the instrument………………….. When there is latent ambiguity extrinsic

evidence in the shape of an interpreting statement in which both parties have

concurred should be admissible. When both parties subsequently say that, by

the word or phrase which in the context is ambiguous, they meant a

particular intention, it only supplies a glossary as to the meaning of the word

or phrase.”

Page 8 of 69

6. F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀj zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ PÁAiÉÄÝ PɼÀUÉ E£Á«ÄÛ d«Ää£À «ªÁzÀ §UɺÀj¸ÀĪÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EzÉAiÉÄÃ? F ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢Ã±ÀgÁzÀ Dgï. UÀÄgÀÄgÁd£ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ²æà DAf£ÉÃAiÀĸÁé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À ªÀ¸Àð¸ï ¸ÉÖÃmï D¥sóï PÀ£ÁðlPÀ 2006 gÀ PÉù£À°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À«¸ÁÛgÀªÁV ZÀað¸ÀÄvÀÛ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÁå¦ÛUÉ F PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ CrAiÀÄ°è wêÀiÁð¤¸ÀvÀPÀÌAvÀ ªÁå¦Û EzÉAiÉÄA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

JUSTICE B.P. SINGH & JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR of The Supreme Court in

M.B. Ramachandran's case, AIR 2005 SC 2671, has considered the Mysore

(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the Mysore

(Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and the Karnataka

Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979. In paragraph 3 of its order,

the Supreme Court notices that there were two Acts in the State of Karnataka,

namely, the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954

(Act No. 1 of 1955), which related to abolition of personal inams and the

Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (Act No. 18 of

1955), which related to the abolition of religious and charitable inams. The

Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 (Act No. 26 of

1979) was enacted by the Karnataka Legislature. Section 2 thereof amended

some provisions of the Mysore Act 1 of 1955 relating to personal inams, and

Section 3 whereof amended some of the provisions of the Mysore (Religious

and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (Mysore Act 18 of 1955), which

related to abolition of religious and charitable inams. The Supreme Court

notices that in view of the amendments brought about, inter alia, the

jurisdiction to determine occupancy rights was conferred on the "Tribunal"

which was earlier conferred on the "Deputy Commissioner" under the

unamended Acts. The Supreme Court notices of a writ petition having been

filed by Sri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam, Kudli v. State of Karnataka ,

challenging the validity of theAmending Act. The High Court declared the

entire Amendment Act of 1979 ultra vires in terms of its judgment. State

preferred appeals. Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court in terms of

the order dated 8-8-1996 without expressing any opinion on the validity of

Page 9 of 69

the Amendment Act, 1979. After noticing all these aspects, the Supreme

Court would notice the arguments put forth before the High Court. Before the

High Court, it was not disputed that the issues involved in the writ petition

filed by Kudli Shringeri Maha Samsthanam were related to religious and

charitable inams and not the abolition of personal inams, and that therefore,

in that context, the provisions of the Amendment Act of 1979 relating to the

amendment of Act 18 of 1955 relating to abolition of religious and charitable

inams were challenged. It was further noticed that in the said writ petition

filed by Kudli Shringeri Maha Samsthanam, validity of Mysore Act 1 of 1955

was not in question. However, the High Court declared the entire amendment

Act ultra vires. The Supreme Court, in the light of this argument and in the

light of the above referred facts, ultimately would say that the writ petition

filed by Kudli Shringeri Maha Samsthanam did not concern with personal

inams and related to only to the religious and charitable inams. In this view

of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in

granting relief in such wide terms declaring the entire Karnataka Inams

Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 to be invalid, and consequently it set

aside that part of the judgment and confined the declaration to the provisions

of the Amendment Act of 1979 only to the extent it amended Mysore Act 18

of 1955. The Supreme Court also ruled that notwithstanding the fact that the

said judgment was modified, it directed that if after 24-4-1992, the Deputy

Commissioner had disposed of the matter under the Mysore Act 1 of 1955

which fell within his jurisdiction, the said orders would not be affected by

that judgment and were saved, but that from then onwards, the jurisdiction

shall be exercised by the Land Tribunal, including the matters pending before

the Deputy Commissioner. A careful reading of the judgment of the Supreme

Court it is clear to me that the Supreme Court confirms that the jurisdiction is

still available to the Deputy Commissioner insofar as it exercises power

under Act 1 of 1955. In the light of arguments in para 7 of the said judgment

and in the light of the findings in paragraphs 9 to 11, what is clear to me is

that the Supreme Court has confirmed the availability of the jurisdiction to

the Special Deputy Commissioner insofar as the petition under Mysore

(Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. The Supreme Court has

ruled in unmistakable terms that Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam's case

would attract only the personal Inams Abolition Act, but it still has

jurisdiction in the light of the Supreme Court holding that the Amendment

Act 1 of 1955 was not in issue.

Page 10 of 69

7. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ:-

zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£ÁªÀiï gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ 1955 PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ°è 1973 gÀ wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀÄAvÉ PÀ®A 9(2)(J)(1) gÀ PɼÀUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30-06-1987 gÀ M¼ÀUÁV Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-1 C£ÀÄß CAzÀgÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 31-12-1986 gÀ°è ²æà ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå, gÀAUÀtÚ, ªÉAPÀl¥Àà J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£Á«ÄÛ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É -1 CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÁå¦Û CªÀ¢AiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

8. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À Cf𠻣É߯É:-

¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà £ÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 29-12-1980 gÀ°è ¨sÀƸÀÄzÁgÀuÉ PÁAiÉÄÝ C£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-7 ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ JQì©mï Dgï.-1 gÀ°è ±ÀÄævÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. d¹ÖÃ¸ï «ÃgÀ§zÀæAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉù£À°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ CzÀÄ ¨sÀƸÀÄzÁgÀuÁPÁ£ÀƤ£À°èAiÀÄÆ ¤«ðªÁ¢vÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¹ÜjÃPÀj¹gÀĪÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

Shankarapra Shrishailappa ... vs Shivappa Rudrappa Sutagatti ILR 1999

KAR 1354, 1999 (3) KarLJ 466The Division Bench has clearly held that

Form 7 cannot be entertained if it is filed after the expiry of 30-6-1979.

Sakrappa vs State Of KarnatakaILR 1985 KAR 1833If it is tenanted land

immediately before 1-3-1974 but the tenant is not in possession immediately

before 1-3-1974, such land also vests in the State Government, according to

the decision of the Full Bench of this Court.So, it is immaterial whether he

makes an application or not before 30-6-1979. This land also goes to the

Page 11 of 69

State pool under Section 77.If he makes an application within time but

cannot be registered as an occupant of lands excluded under Section 45(2),

those lands go to the pool for disposal under Section 77 and he is liable for

eviction from such lands.

CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-7 gÀ°è£À CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁQgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CfðAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ¹AzÀĪÀ®è. E°èªÀgÉUÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-1 gÀAvÉ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£Á«ÄÛ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ ªÁzÀªÀÇ CªÀgÀzÀÝ®è.

9. ZÁPÀj E£ÁªÀÄÄ zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ZÁPÀjzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj zÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£Á«ÄÛ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ jUÁæAnUÉ CºÀðgÉ:-JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è UÉÃtÂzÁgÀ£ÁV EzÉÝ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ZÁPÀj E£ÁªÀÄÄ d«ÄãÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F zÀéAzÀéPÁj ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ ¤d AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JA§ §UÉÎ «ªÀgÀ E®è. DzÀgÉ 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÁPÁë÷åzÁgÀzÀ°è J°èAiÀÄÆ vÁªÀÅ UÉÃt gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è G½ªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉAzÁUÀ°Ã, zÉêÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ UÉÃt gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ¥sóÀ¸À®Ä CxÀªÀ UÉÃt ºÀt ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉAzÁUÀ°Ã J°èAiÀÄÆ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀÄ CªÀgÀ PÉøÀÄ C®è. CªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CªÀgÀ PÉøÀÄ K£ÉAzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄüÀªÁzÀå ªÀiÁqÀĪÀªÀgÁVzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ°è PËëjPÀgÁVzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ CA±ÀªÀÅ ¤«ðªÁ¢vÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DzÀj¹ ¤zÁðgÀPÉÌ §gÀĪÀÅzÁzÀgÉ, ZÁPÀj

Page 12 of 69

ªÉÄüÀªÁzÀåªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ¨sÀdAwæ E£ÁªÀÄÄ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀ®A 10(3)(J) (1) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (2) gÀ°è£À ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ ¥À¸Àð£À¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «Ä¸À¯ÉäAiÀĸï E£ÁªÀiï C¨Á°µÀ£ï PÁAiÉÄÝ C£ÀéAiÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 31-12-1979 gÀ M¼ÀUÉ ºÁPÀ¨ÉÃQgÀĪÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀªÀÅ ºÉüÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F jÃwAiÀÄ°è £ÉÆÃrzÀgÀÆ CfðAiÀÄÄ ¤UÀ¢vÀ ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉE°è E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁjPÉAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ zÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£ÁªÀÄÄ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ 1955 gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁjPÉ DzÀÄzÀÝjAzÀ E°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÁvÀæ JgÉqÀÄ ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÀÄ°è CqÀVzÉ. CªÀgÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÉÃ? CªÀgÀÄ PÀ®A 6J PɼÀUÉ vÀªÀÄä ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥Àæw¥Á¢¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?. CªÀgÀ ¥ÁægÀA©PÀ ºÀAvÀ¢AzÀ E°èªÀgÉV£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ UÀªÀĤ¹zÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÀ®A 6J PɼÀUÉ ¥Àæw¥Á¢¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. F PɼÀPÀAqÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀzÀ §UÉÎ UÀªÀÄ£À ºÀj¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

A.C. Anantha Swamy And Another vs State Of Karnataka And OthersILR

1998 KAR 3089, 1998 (5) KarLJ 480The allied issue is the question as to

whether Form No. 1 is condition precedent for the Special Deputy

Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction. It is a familiar situation that often

arises before Courts and judicial forums, that even if the type of proceeding

instituted turns out to be erroneous that the Court has the power to direct

corrective action because it comes within the doctrine of curability. It is in

this background that I need to point out that as far as the respondents are

concerned, that they had filed the requisite Form No. 7 and I also understand

that it was filed within the prescribed period. Had they filed Form No. 1

instead of filing Form No. 7 at that point of time they would have still been

within time and having regard to the fact that they are now virtually

redirected to the correct forum it would only mean that it is a corrective

action and in this background, the non-filing of the Form No. 1 will not in any

way affect the validity of the proceeding before the Special Deputy

Commissioner. On the contrary, Form No. 7 filed by the petitioners will have

Page 13 of 69

to be deemed to be analogous to the Form No. 1 which they would have

otherwise filed had they gone to that authority in the first instance. I need to

clarify this aspect of the law because I do not want a situation whereby

obstacles will be raised in the way of the decision of the case before the

Special Deputy Commissioner because this litigation has gone on for long

enough and it is high time that it is disposed of.

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£ÁªÀÄÄ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è vÀªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ªÁzÀ«zÀÝgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁ®«ÄwAiÀÄ°è ºÁQzÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj Cfð ¹AzÀÄvÀézÀÝ®è JA§ £ÀªÀÄä ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ w½¸ÀÄvÀÛ ¹Ã«ÄvÀªÁV F «ZÁgÀPÉÌ M¥Àà¯ÁVzÉ.

10. AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ°è E£ÁªÀiï ¨sÀÆ«Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£ÁªÀÄÄ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÉ®ªÀÅ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÉãÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¸À®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢Ã±ÀgÁVzÀÝ gÁªÀÄeÉÆÃAiÀÄ¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Dgï. ªÀÄÆwð gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ wæð£À GzÀÈvÀ ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛ. JgÀqÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ CªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄüÀªÁzÀå £ÀqɸÀĪÀ E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, CªÀjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è ºÀPÀÄÌ EzÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è PɼÀV£À PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀzÀAvÉ 01-04-1959 gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ UÉÃt zÁgÀgÀÄ E®èªÉAzÀÄ vÁªÀÅ E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹wÛzÀÝgÀÄ, CzÀQÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ EzÀÝ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ E£ÁªÀiï ¸Él¯ï ªÉÄAmï ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ UÁæAnUÁV

Page 14 of 69

CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, DzÀgÉ D jÃwAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÆ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ E®èzÉ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀgÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀ ªÉõÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

Shri Dharmarayaswamy Temple vs Chinnathayappa ILR 1990 KAR 4242

“The former State of Mysore enacted the Mysore (Religious and Charitable)

Inarns Abolition Act, 1955. Under the provisions of the Act all religious inam

lands stood vested in the State Government with effect from 1-4-1959, on

which date the Act came into force. The Act provided that after the Inam

tenure is abolished, and the lands are vested in the State, occupancy rights in

respect of erstwhile inam lands be conferred in favour of persons who were

Kadim tenants and Permanent tenants under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act

respectively. In respect of other tenants, other than Kadim tenants and

permanent tenants, Section 6 of the Act provided that from the date of

vesting the said tenants shall continue as tenants under the Government in

respect of the lands of which they were the tenants under the Inamdar prior

to the date of vesting. Section 8 of the Act provided that except in respect of

the categories of lands specified in the said Section, the Inamdar was entitled

to be registered as an occupant of the lands which stood vested in the

Government consequent on the Abolition of the Inam lands. ............... But the

granting of occupancy right could be only on the basis that the claimant had

become a tenant of such land of the Inamdar on and after the date of vesting

of the land in the Government under that Act and/or after the grant of

occupancy right to the Inamdar under the said 1955 Act; for, under Section 8

of that Act occupancy right could be and would have been granted to an

Inamdar only in respect of lands which were not under cultivation of Kadim

tenants or permanent tenants who were entitled to occupancy right under

Sections 4 and 5 thereof or in respect of which there were no other category

of tenants, who were entitled to continue as tenants under the Government

as provided in Section 6 of that Act. ........... Mysore Religious and Charitable

Inams Abolition Act, 1955 came into force with effect from 1-4-1959. Under

the provisions of the said Act all the lands which had constituted religious

Inams in the State stood vested in the State Government. As stated earlier in

detail. Section 4 of the Act provided for conferment of occupancy rights on

certain categories of tenants called Kadim tenants. Section 5 of the Act made

Page 15 of 69

provision for grant of occupancy rights in respect of permanent tenants.

Section 6 of the Act is of very material importance to this case. It provided

that every tenant, other than tenants under Sections 4 and 5 who alone could

claim occupancy rights, would become tenants under the Government.

Section 8 of the Act provided for conferment of occupancy rights on the

Inamdar only in respect of lands in respect of which there were no tenants,

falling under Section 4, Section 5 or Section 6. Therefore, from these

provisions, it is clear if any one was a Kadim tenant of an erstwhile inam land

belonging to a religious Institution he was entitled to be registered as an

occupant under Section 4, and a permanent tenant of an erstwhile religious

inam land was entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 5.

Every tenant other than a Kadim tenant or a permanent tenant was to

continue as a tenant under the Government with effect from the date of

vesting. The Inamdar; in the present case the petitioner-temple; was entitled

to be registered as an occupant of the land if only in respect of such lands

there were no tenants either falling under Section 4 or Section 5 or Section 6

of the Act. ”

11. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ®A 6J ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£ÁªÀÄÄ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ CrAiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ºÉýPÉ AiÀÄ°è£À PÉ®ªÀÅ ªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀvÉ ºÉüÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. KPÀPÁ®zÀ°è JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÁvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ¸ÁzÀå«®è. zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÉÄðéZÁgÀuÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀÝgÉ, CzÀ£ÀÄß jÃUÁæAnUÉ PÀ®A 6J PɼÀUÉ ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÀ®A 6J CrAiÀÄ°è£À CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀ Cfð EgÀĪÁUÉÎ ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À®Ä PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è gÀºÁ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

Page 16 of 69

EvÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀ UÉÃtÂzÁjPÉAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄAvÉ, CªÀgÀÄ PÀ®A 6J CrAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀgÀÄ E£Á«ÄÛ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃ¥ÀðqÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¢AzÀ 3 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è ¸ÀéAvÀ G½ªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀ¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAvÀºÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¸ÀzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Àȶ׹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀA§®ºÀðªÀ®èªÉAzÀÄ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ wêÀiÁð£ÀPÉÌ §gÀ§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F §UÉÎ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢Ã±ÀgÁzÀ gÁªÀÄeÉÆÃ¬Ä¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ¢Ã±ÀgÁzÀ gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚ gÀªÀgÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ PÉù£À°è ¸À«¸ÁÛgÀªÁV «ªÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

M.N. Shivappa vs State Of Karnataka ILR 1986 KAR 2472, 1986 (2) KarLJ

146Bench: R Jois, Ramakrishna “We have set out the provision of Section 6A

earlier. Clause (1) refers to persons serving in the temples in the capacity of

Archak/Pujari and to persons holding similar offices which means persons

engaged in connection with the worshipping of the deity in the temple.

Clause (2) refers to persons serving in temples in any capacity other than

Archaks/Pujaries and the like. The Section confers the eligibility for securing

occupancy rights on both the classes of servants if they had actually

cultivated the lands for a period of three years. A careful reading of the

Section would make it clear that the Clause "personally cultivating for a

continuous period of not less than three years prior to the date of vesting" in

Cause(ii) of Section 6A applies not only to the categories of persons referred

to in Clause (i) but also in Clause (ii). Any other construction would lead to

incongruous results. To illustrate : If an Archak/Poojari referred to in Clause

(i) is entitled to occupancy rights in respect of erstwhile Inam land belonging

to a temple even though he was not cultivating the lands, the following

questions would arise. If any other person was actually cultivating the land

and further he happens to be either the Kadim tenant or Protected tenant or

Permanent tenant what should happen to him? Should he be evicted and

occupancy right should be given to the Archak and then what is the extent of

Page 17 of 69

land in respect of which he can claim occupancy rights? Can he chum

occupancy rights in respect of all the extents of Inam lands belonging to the

religious institution concerned? The other provisions of the Act, namely,

Sections 4, 5 and 5A expressly provide that the persons cultivating the

erstwhile religious Inam lands in those capacities are entitled to secure

occupancy rights. Certainly Section 6A is not intended to deprive the

occupancy rights in respect of the persons who have beers actually

cultivating the lands as protected tenant or permanent tenant or kadim

tenant and confer the occupancy rights on the Archak/Poojari, who had

never cultivated the lands. ............................ Therefore, we respectfully disagree

with the interpretation and hold that the Clause 'personally cultivating for a

period of not less than three years' in Clause (ii) of Section 6-A applied to

both the categories viz., Archak/Poojari and other temple servants.”

12. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¸À¥sóÀ®gÁVzÁÝgÉ:-ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¤µÁ£É ¦1 gÉPÁqïð D¥sóï gÉÊmïì UÉÃt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ zÀÈrÃPÀÈvÀ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ CzÀgÀ°è£À G½ªÉÄzÁjPÉ PÁ®A £À°è £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀÝw ªÁgÀ¸ÁUÀÄ JA§ ¤«ðªÁ¢vÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAa£À zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ ®¨sÀå«®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¤µÁ£É ¦1 »A¢£À ¥ÀÄlzÀ°è ªÉÄîģÉÆÃlPÉÌ ¸Á©ÃvÁUÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ 1970-71 £Éà ¸Á°¤AzÀ 1972-73 £Éà ¸Á°£ÀªÀgÉUÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ w¢ÝgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ UÀªÀĤ¸À¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. JQì©mï Dgï-2 gÀ°è ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀºÀt ¥sóÉÆÃdðjÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ JA§ CPÀëgÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¥É¤ß£À°è §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯Éʤ£À «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ªÀåvÁå¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §gÀªÀtÂUÉ ªÀåvÁå¸ÀzÀ°è CzÀgÀ ¥sóÉÆÃdðAiÀÄð£ÀÄß PÁt §ºÀÄ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è «¯ÉÃeï CPËAmÉAmï JA§

Page 18 of 69

DAUÀè ¨ÁµÉAiÀÄ ¹Ã®Ä ºÉƸÀzÁzÀ PÀA¥ÀÆåljÃPÀÈvÀ ¹Ã¯ÁVzÀÄÝ 1968-69 jAzÀ 1972-73 gÀªÀgÉUÉ CzÉà ¹Ã®£ÀÄß ¸À»AiÀÄ£ïß ºÁQgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ¸À» “PÁ¦ E±ÀÆåqï” JAzÀÄ ¸À»AiÀÄÆ C®èzÀ VÃZÀÄ«PÉ ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ eÁUÀzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ªÀåvÁå¸À ¢AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¹Ã®Ä 1968 gÀ°èAiÉÄà EvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀézÀ¢AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAzÀÄ PÀA¥ÀÆåljÃPÀÈvÀ ¹Ã®Ä vÀAiÀiÁjPÉ §¼ÀPÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀ°®è JA§ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå eÁÕ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß E°è ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. «±ÉõÀªÉAzÀgÉ JQì©mï Dgï-3 jAzÀ Dgï-8 gÀªÀgÉV£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è «¯ÉÃeï CPËAmÉAmï ¹Ã®Ä ªÀµÁðªÁgÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ Dgï-9 gÀ°è F ¥ÀzÀÝw ±ÀÄgÀĪÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁt§ºÀÄ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. JQì©mï Dgï-1 C£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ EzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ 12-01-1982 gÀ°èAiÉÄà ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ FUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 28-06-2008 gÀ°è vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀ PÀZÉÃj £ÀA§gï 458/08-09 gÀ°è PÉ.ºÉZï. £ÁUÀgÁdÄ JA§ÄªÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀAvÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯É ¤ªÀð»vÀ PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ¥sóÉÆÃdðj DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀħgÀÄwÛzÉ. JQì©mï ¦-1 zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19-04-1986 gÀ°è vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ UÉÆëAzÀgÁdÄ JA§ F PÉù£À ªÁ¢AiÀĪÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀÝ £ÀPÀ®Ä DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F «ZÁgÀªÁV ¥ÀºÀt £ÀªÀÄÆ¢£À ªÀåvÁå¸ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ C£ÉÃPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼ÀÄ ®¨sÀå«zÀÄÝ F PÉù£À°è dgÀÄVgÀĪÀ CAvÀºÀ ¥sóÉÆÃdðjÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂUÀ¼À£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ÄzÀPÉÌ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors AIR 1976 SC 1485 It is true

that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their

face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their

Page 19 of 69

correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine,

not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real.

The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry

is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was

Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of

all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.

Wall Mohammad (Deceased) By L.Rs vs Ram Surat & Ors AIR 1989 SC

2296,If the entry is fictitious or is found to have been made surrepti- tiously

then it can have no legal effect as it can be re- garded as no entry in law, but

merely because the entry is made incorrectly that would not lead to the

conclusion that it ceases to be an entry. It is possible that the said entry may

be set aside in appropriate proceedings.

Laxmappa Kakappa Nelagund vs The Land Tribunal And Anr. ILR 2003

KAR 4096, 2003 (2) KarLJ 647 JUSTICE N. PATILThe entries in the relevant

record of rights for the agricultural years 1970-71 to 1973-74, show the

name of the petitioner in cultivator's column and mode of cultivation is one.

The 'one' indicates that he is claiming as owner. Therefore, entries found

earlier in the record of rights has got no relevance as held by this Court in the

case cited above. In my considered view, the petitioner is not entitled to seek

for grant of occupancy rights as tenant in respect of the land in question.

JUSTICE N. PATILGangappa Yamanappa Chalawadi vs The State Of

Karnataka 2008 (2) KarLJ 728 The said illegal entry found in the record of

rights cannot be accepted for the reason that, mere entry in the record of

rights will not entitle the petitioner to claim occupancy rights even though

there is a presumption of correctness of entries appearing in the record of

rights as per Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said

entry must be made on the basis of the order passed by the competent

authority.

13. ªÁgÀ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ UÉÃtÂzÁjPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥sóÀ¸À°£À°è ¨ÁUÀ ¤Ãr ªÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ UÉÃt ¥ÀzÀÝwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀºÀt £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¸ÁÛgÀªÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀĦæêÀiï PÉÆÃmïð F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ «ªÀIJð¹

Page 20 of 69

UÉÃtÂzÁgÀ£À ¥ÀgÀªÁV wÃ¥ÀÄð EwÛzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä PÉù£À°èAiÀÄÆ ¤.¦ 1 gÀ°è ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄUÁgÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ 1968-69 gÀ°è £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå §A¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ¥ÀzÀÝwAiÀÄ°è “ ªÁgÀ ” JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ F £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢ ¥ÀÆ«ðPÀgÀÄ UÉÃt zÁgÀ£ÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1973-74 £Éà ¸Á®Ä 01-03-1973 gÀ°è ¥ÁægÀA§ªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ, 1974-75 £Éà ¸Á®Ä 01-03-1974 gÀ°è ¥ÁægÀA§ªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ, UÉÃtÂzÁgÀ£À ºÀPÀÄÌ ¸ÀAgÀQë¸ÀĪÀ ¤nÖ£À°è 01-03-1974 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀQÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ AiÀiÁgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀ£ÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀĪÀÅzÉÆà DvÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÁ£ÀƤ£À ¥Àj¨Á«¸ÀÄ«PÉ (¦æ¸ÀªÀıÀ£ï ) ¹zÀÝAvÀ PÀ®A 44 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 45 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀƸÀÄzÁgÀuÁ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1961 gÀ°è gÀPÀëuÉUÉ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÃUÉ ‘ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå ’ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄ ’ AvÀgÁAiÀÄ ’ JAzÀÄ wzÀݯÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ zÁR¯É ¸À°è¹ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀA§®ºÀð ¸ÁQëUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁQë ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV ¸ÁPÁë÷åzÁgÀ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸À¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ¤.Dgï.2 gÀ ¥ÀºÀt ¥sóÉÆÃdðjÃPÀÈvÀ ¤µÁ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®Ä £ÉÆÃlPÉÌ PÀAqÀħA¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÀA©PÉUÉ CºÀðªÁzÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹®è, DzÀgÉ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ E§âgÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¸ÀzÀj £ÀA©PÉUÉ CºÀðªÀ®èzÀ ¥ÀºÀt w¢ÝgÀÄ«PÉ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄ«PÉAiÀÄ°è ¸À¥sóÀ®gÁVzÁÝgÉ. ªÀÄÆ® ¥ÀºÀtÂ

Page 21 of 69

G¯ÉèÃRzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥ÀÆ«ðPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß E°èªÀgÉUÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆgÀºÁQgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-03-1974 gÀ°è vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¦æ¸ÀªÀıÀ£ï §UÉÎ ªÀåwjPÀÛ ¸ÁPÀë÷å¢AzÀ ¸ÀvÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀºÁQ ºÁ¢ ¸ÀÄUÀªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÁÝgÉ.S. Venkatappa vs Narayanappa

& Ors (2001) 4 SCC 705;In support of his claim Appellant had relied upon

R.T.C. record of rights and tenancy and Pahani for the concerned area. This

showed that from 1965 to 1970 the Appellant was cultivating the land as

"Wara" i.e. a tenant. This record also showed Muniyamma as self cultivator

for the years 1970-71. It could not be disputed that no enquiry, as

contemplated under the Act, had taken place before such a change was made

in the records. The record again shows in 1973-74 and 1974-75 the name of

the Appellant but as a "Swantha", i.e. a cultivator. Apart from these the

Appellant gave oral evidence of his own tenancy firstly under one Sri

Narayanappa, who was the owner before Muniyamma, then under

Muniyamma and thereafter under Munivenkate Gowda. Munivenkate Gowda

also gave evidence. He confirmed that the Appellant was a tenant under him

and had been paying him rent by giving a share in the crop. The Appellant

and Munivenkate Gowda proved certain rent receipts for the period 1972 to

1975. Munivenkate Gowda accepted the fact that he had received the rent

and that he had issued those rent receipts. Thus the Revenue Records

showed that the Appellant as a tenant from 1965 to 1970. Thereafter, the

Revenue Records showed during the years 1972 to 1974 the name of the

Appellant as a self cultivator. Admitted that entry would be wrong because

during this period Munivenkate Gowda was the owner of the land. The

entries show the presence of the Appellant on the land as a tenant upto 1970.

The evidence of Munivenkate Gowda establishes that the Appellant was a

tenant till 1975. On the above evidence, oral and documentary both the Land

Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority had, on the material before them,

held that the Appellant was a tenant of the land on the appointed day i.e. 1st

March, 1974. The Orders of the Land Tribunal and the first Appellate Court

are restored. By supreme court.”

Page 22 of 69

14. PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è AiÀiÁªÀ «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj¨Á«¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ, ¥Àj¨Á«¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ, RqÁØAiÀĪÁV ¥Àj¨Á«¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ, C£ÀÄߪÀ «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è ¥Àj¨Á«¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ EzÀÝgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß C£Àå ¸ÁPÁë÷åzÁgÀ«®èzÉ EzÀÝgÉ ¥Àj¨Á«¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀUÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ®Ä DAUÀè ¨ÁµÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PɼÀUÉ ªÁ¢¹gÀÄvÉÛ.Even otherwise, Illustration (e) of Section

114 of the Evidence Act provides for a presumption that every action of

Statutory Authority is carried out in accordance with the law. The

expressions "may presume" and "shall presume" are defined in Section 4 of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). The

presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known

as "factual presumptions" or "discretionary presumptions" and those falling

under the latter as "legal presumptions" or "compulsory presumptions".

Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted the Court can

treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. However, as a caution of

prudence we have to observe that it may be unsafe to use that presumption

to draw yet; another discretionary presumption unless there is a statutory

compulsion. In Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,

AIR 1977 SC 183, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the presumption

provided in Illustration (3) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is based on

well-known maxim of law "omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta" (i.e. all acts

are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done). The Court further

held that this presumption is, however, one of the fact. It is an optional

presumption and can be displaced by the circumstances, indicating that the

power lodged in an authority or official has not been exercised in accordance

with law.

15. ¥ÀºÀt £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉêÀ® vÀªÀÄä ºÉýPɬÄAzÀ ªÀåwjPÀÛvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸À¯ÁUÀzÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ¸ÁPÁë÷åzÁgÀvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è£À

Page 23 of 69

ªÉÄÃ®Ä £ÉÆÃlzÀ ¥sóÉÆÃdðjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃgÀ¨ÉÃQgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À¥sóÀ®gÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è£À ¥sóÉÆÃdðjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃjzÁÝgÉ, ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ¸ÁPÁë÷åzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀA¢zÁÝgÉ »ÃUÉ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä UÉÃt ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.Karewwa

And Ors. vs Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri AIR 2002 SC 504 (2002) 10

SCC 315 We do not dispute the legal position as stated by the learned

counsel for the appellant, but the presumption of correctness of an entry in

revenue record cannot be rebutted by a statement in the written statement.

Mere statement of fact in the written statement is not a rebuttal of

presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record. The

respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record in the year 1973

and under law the presumption is that the entry is correct. It was for the

appellant to rebut the presumption by leading evidence. The appellant has

not led any evidence to show that entry in the revenue record is Incorrect.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention.

16. 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ SÁAiÀÄA UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ C®è UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÆ C®è JAzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀªÉà ºÉüÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ zÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£ÁªÀÄÄ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ 1955 PÀ®A 2(12) gÀ jÃvÀå ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À¥sóÀ®gÁVzÁÝgÉ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁjPÉAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÀÄ EzÀjAzÀ ±ÀÈvÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams

Abolition Act, 1955. Section 2(12) "Permanent tenant" means a person who

either under Section 79 of the [Land Revenue Code] { Now see the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Act 12 of 1964). }or otherwise is entitled to a

tenancy in respect of any land used for agricultural purposes, the duration of

which is co-extensive with the duration of the tenure of the inamdar; but,

Page 24 of 69

where the inamdar is an institution of religious worship shall not include a

person rendering religious service in or maintaining the institution as a

pujari, archak or the holder of a similar office, and enjoying the benefits of

any land comprised in the inam of such institution, without paying rent as

such in money or in kind to that institution in respect of such land;

17. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV EA¢£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CA¢£À ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ¥Àj¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà °TvÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ ªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 1888 gÀ gÉ«£ÀÆå PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¨sÀƸÀÄzÁgÀuÁ PÁAiÉÄÝ, ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ EªÀÅUÀ¼À°è£À UÉÃtÂzÁgÀ, SÁAiÀÄA UÉÃtÂzÁgÀ, UÉÃtÂzÁgÀ¤UÉ EgÀĪÀ gÀPÀëuÉ §UÉÎ ¥ÀgÁªÀIJð¸À®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Áå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹zÉ.LAND REVENUE CODE 1888

SECTION 79. Amount of rent payable by tenant.

A person placed, as tenant, in possession of land by another, or, in that

capacity, holding, taking or retaining possession of land permissively from or

by sufferance of another, shall be regarded as holding the same at the rent, or

for the services, agreed upon between them; or, in the absence of satisfactory

evidence of such agreement of the rent payable or services renderable by the

usage of the locality, or, if there be no such agreement or usage, shall be

presumed to hold at such rent as, having regard to all the circumstances of

the case, shall be just and reasonable.

And, where, by reason of the antiquity of a tenancy, no satisfactory evidence

of its commencement is forthcoming, and there is not any such evidence of

the period of its intended duration, if any, agreed upon between the landlord

and tenant, or those under whom they respectively claim title, or any usage

of the locality as the duration of such tenancy, it shall, as against the

immediate landlord of the tenant, be presumed to be co-extensive with the

duration of the tenure of such landlord and of those who derive title under

him.

Page 25 of 69

Explanation.

In the following cases, such a presumption shall be raised.

(1) where the tenant has been recognised as a permanent tenant by the

landlord or by a Court in a suit to which the landlord was a party;

(2) where a tenant holds land in respect of which any alienation has been

recognised by the landlord or by a Court in a suit to which the landlord was a

party or where the alienation has not been contested by the landlord for

twelve years from the date of the service of notice of alienation to the

landlord;

(3) where for the better cultivation of the holding the tenant has made

permanent improvements thereon to the knowledge of the landlord and has

been in undisturbed possession of the holding continuously for twelve years

thereafter: provided that the landlord has made no contribution for such

improvements nor recovered enhanced rent from the tenant nor given any

notice in writing to the tenant that such improvements would not create any

new rights;

(4) where, in the absence of a contract regarding the nature and duration of

the tenancy, the tenant has established that he has been in continuous

possession on payment of fixed rent for a period of twelve

And where there is no satisfactory evidence of the capacity in which a person

in possession of land in respect of which he renders service or pays rent to

the landlord, receives, holds or retains possession of the same, it shall be

presumed that he is in possession as tenant.

Nothing contained in this section shall affect the right of the landlord (if he

have the same either by virtue of agreement, usage or otherwise) to enhance

the rent payable, or services renderable, by the tenant, or to evict the tenant

for non-payment of the rent or non-rendition of the services, either

respectively originally fixed or duly enhanced as aforesaid.

18. ¨sÀƸÀÄzÁgÀuÁ PÀ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀĺÀvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß «ªÀj¸À®Ä ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ zÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£ÁªÀÄÄ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ°è ¨sÀƸÀÄzÁgÀuÁ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ C£Àé¬Ä¹ CzÀgÀ°è£À PÀ®A 44 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 45 gÀAvÉ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɸÀĪÁUÀ 01-03-1974 ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR vÁjÃRÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

Page 26 of 69

Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 Section 30.

Enquiries by the Tribunal and the Deputy Commissioner.-

(1) In respect of every enquiry under this Act by the Tribunal, the provisions

of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 applicable to enquiries by the

Tribunals under the said Act shall mutatis mutandis apply

The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, came into force on 2-10-1965. The

Act was in execution of the policy of agrarian reforms and was intended to

give ownership of the land to the actual lawful tiller and to avoid absentee

landlordism. Certain revolutionary amendments were made to the

provisions of the Act by Act No. 1/1974, which came into force w.e.f. 1-3-

1974. The Land Reforms Act so amended is relevant for the purpose of this

case. According to the Land Reforms Act as amended, all agricultural lands

which were under cultivation by the tenants as on the appointed date i.e. as

on 1-3-1974 stand vested in the State Government under Section 44 of the

Act, Section 45 of the Act provided for registering the tenants as occupants of

the agricultural lands of which they were the tenants.

Section 2(34) of the Land Reforms Act defined the word 'tenant' reads:-

"2(34) 'tenant' means an Agriculturist (who cultivates personally the land he

holds on lease) from a landlord and includes, -

(i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4;

(ii) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by the

Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961;

(iia) a person who cultivates personally any land on lease under a lease

created contrary to the provisions of Section 5 and before the date of

commencement of the Amendment Act;

(iii) a person who is a permanent tenant; and

(iv) a person who is a protected tenant.

"Section 2(34) of Land Reforms Act 'tenant' means an Agriculturist (who

cultivates personally the land he holds on lease) from a landlord and

includes, -

(i) a person who is deemed to be a tenant under Section 4;

(ii) a person who was protected from eviction from any land by the

Karnataka Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961;

Page 27 of 69

(iia) a person who cultivates personally any land on lease under a lease

created contrary to the provisions of Section 5 and before the date of

commencement of the Amendment Act;

(iii) a person who is a permanent tenant; and

(iv) a person who is a protected tenant.

Section 2 (23) of Land Reforms act “permanent tenant” of the Land

Reforms Act means a tenant who cultivates land personally,—

(a) the commencement or duration of whose tenancy cannot satisfactorily be

proved by reason of antiquity of such tenancy; or

(b) whose name or the name of whose predecessor-in-title has been entered

in the record of rights or in any public record or in any other revenue record

as a permanent tenant; or

(c) who by custom, agreement or the decree or order of a court holds the

land on lease permanently; or

(d) who holds land as mulgenidar, mirasdar or khata kul; and includes any

person whose tenancy is under the provisions of any law presumed to be co-

extensive with the duration of the tenure of the landlord;

Section 4 of the Land Reforms Act reads:-

"4. Persons to be deemed tenants:- A person lawfully cultivating any land

belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not

cultivated personally by the owner and if such person is not -

(a) a member of the owner's family, or

(b) a servant or a hired labourer on wages payable in cash or kind but not in

crop share cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the owner

or any member of the owner's family, or

(c) a mortgagee in possession:

Provided that if upon an application made by the owner within one year from

the appointed day -

(i) the Tribunal declares that such person is not a tenant and its decision is

not reversed on appeal, or

(ii) the Tribunal refuses to make such declaration but its decision is reversed

on appeal, such person shall not be deemed to be a tenant."

Page 28 of 69

Section 2(11) of the Land Reforms Act defines "to cultivate personally"

as follows :

Cultivate land on one's own account

i) By one's own labour, or

ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or

iii) by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind but not in

crop share, under the personal supervision of one self or by member of one's

family.".

ARGUMENTS

Preamble to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act would show that the said

Act has been enacted to have uniform law relating to agrarian. Confirmation

of ownership on tenant, ceiling of land holding and for certain other matters.

Interpretation has to be in favour of the weaker sections of the society which

would achieve the object in terms of the intentment of the legislation.

'Agriculture' has been defined so also 'agricultural labourer' in the Act.

'Tenant' has been defined to mean an agriculturist who cultivates personally

the land he holds on lease from a landlord, and 'Agriculturist' has defined to

mean a person who cultivates land personally. …….. From a reading of the

definitions agriculture, agriculturist and tenant, what is clear to

this parties is that the land has to be given to its actual cultivator

in terms of the Act. In the light of the evidence of the both the

parties and in the light of revenue records, it cannot be said on

the facts of this case that the 'tenant' is not an agriculturist in

terms of the definition in the case on hand. Crop-share is one

mode of tenancy in agricultural operation.

In ascertaining the status of a person as tenant, the mode of cultivation as

shown in the Act becomes very relevant. There are in all, six modes, viz.

(i) cultivated by holder himself,

(ii) cultivated by hired labourer;

(iii) tenant paying cash;

(iv) share of crop;

(v) fixed quantity of produce and

(vi) proximity of aforesaid forms.

Page 29 of 69

It is true that burden of proving tenancy is upon the person who asserts it or

who claims it. Tenancy means relationship of landlord and tenant but in view

of the peculiar and special provisions of Section 2(18) and Section 4, a person

in possession may have no relation with the landlord in a given case but he,

nevertheless, be called as tenant. The provisions show that a person who is

merely in possession, lawfully of course, is also a tenant.

Definition of "tenant" is divided into two parts - one contractual and the

other statutory or who can be described for brevity's sake "deemed tenants".

It could very well be visualised from the aforesaid provisions that "deemed

tenant" or a statutory tenant means a person who lawfully cultivates any

land belonging to another person if such person is not a member of the

owner's family or a servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not in share

or a hired labour cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the

owner or any member of the owner's family or a mortgagee in possession.

Section 4, therefore, far from defining a statutory tenant, raises a

presumption of statutory tenancy in the circumstances provided therein. A

presumption can be rebutted by showing not necessarily the exceptions

provided in the section itself but by other circumstances also by showing that

the person holding the land is not so holding in the capacity of a tenant but in

some other position.

The concept of "tenant" in the Tenancy Act is founded primarily on "land"

and its "cultivation". The process of thinking embodied in Section 4 is

primarily based on the "land" and its lawful cultivation and not merely

cultivation. The cultivation must have its origin in some lawful act and that is

why the section describes and not defines a deemed tenant, as one who is

"lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another" that is to say, so

cultivating any land in his own right and not on behalf of another. The

expression "lawfully cultivating" would mean the same thing as cultivating

"on one's own account" and for "one's own profit", in part or in full. The

underlying purport and design behind Section 4 is to protect a lawful

cultivator actively engaged in the act of raising the crops on the land or its

major part though he may not be holding the land on lease in a traditional

sense of the terms. The expression "lawfully cultivating" is now very well

settled. It cannot exist without the concomitant existence of lawful

Page 30 of 69

relationship which can be proved even without the formal proof of a

traditional form of lease.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, (Vth Edition 1964) defines 'agriculturist' at

page 26 under the term 'agriculture' as follows; "Cultivation of the soil. Hence

agricultural, agriculturist." In other words the meaning to' be attached to the

term 'agriculturist' is the person who cultivates the soil.

The term has been legally defined under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to

mean a person who cultivates land personally. 'To cultivate' with Its

grammatical variations and cognate expressions means to till or husband the

land for the purpose of raising or improving agricultural produce whether by

manual labour or by means of cattle or machinery, or to carry on any

agricultural operation thereon; and the expression 'uncultivated' shall be

construed correspondingly.

19. ªÀiËTPÀ UÉÃtÂzÁjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ M¥ÀÄàvÀÛzÉ, MmÁÖgÉ G½ªÉÄzÁgÀ£ÀÄ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀªÉÇÃð£ÀßvÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è EzÁÝ£É:- Section 2(34) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 reads thus:

""Tenant" means a lessee, whether holding under an instrument or an oral

agreement and includes.-

(i) a person who is or is deemed to be a tenant under any law for the time

being in force;

(ii) a mortgagee of a tenant's rights with possession, or

(iii) a lessee holding directly under the State Government or a local authority

or body corporate".

It is in this context that a liberal interpretation is called for keeping in mind

the socio-economic thrust. In this background, it must be remembered that

liberal interpretation in keeping with socio-economic thrust would be to

allow a cultivator to prove his status alternatively by resorting to the

provision of Section 4 where he is unable to prove a lease in term of Section

105 of the Transfer of Property Act. A person who is sharing crop cannot be

said to be mere holder of settlement of service. A provision is required to be

interpreted to subserve the purpose of the Act in the factual background in a

Page 31 of 69

given case. It is a settled proposition of law that interpretation should be

benevolent. A person, lawfully, cultivating any land belonging to another

person would be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated

personally by the owner and if such person is not a member of the owner's

family or mortgagee in possession or servant on wages payable in cash or

kind but not in share of hired labourer under the personal supervision of the

owner. It could very well be seen from the provisions of Section 4 that person

cultivating the land and wages are paid in cash or kind but not in crop share

is excluded from the definition of Section 4. If a person who is, personally,

cultivating the land even in capacity of servant and who receives crop share,

may be in part, could be said to have been covered by the definition of

"deemed tenant" under Section 4.

20. J¯Áè jÃwAiÀÄ UÉÃtÂAiÀÄ°è£À ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÀ½UÀÆ 01-03-1974 ¥ÀæªÀÄÄPÀªÁzÀ vÁjÃRÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. Justices V Malimath, K J Shetty, &P Bopanna in Ballesha Rama Khot And

Ors. vs The Land Tribunal, Chikodi AIR 1978 Kant 73 Section 44(1). That

Section commences with the words "All lands held by or in the possession of

tenants stand transferred to and vest in the State Government." It provides

that the lands not only in the actual possession of tenants but also those held

by them immediately prior to first March, 1974, shall vest in the State

Government. The land held by a tenant may not be in his actual possession.

The words "To hold land" although not defined under the Act, but we can

take their meaning from the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as Section

2(B) of the Act provides that words and expressions used, but not defined

shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

Under Section 2(11) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 the expression

"to hold land" or to be "a land owner or holder of land" to mean "to be in

lawful possession of land whether such possession is actual or not". It is clear

from this definition that the expression "all lands held" used in Section 44(1)

has to be understood as meaning thereby, the lands is lawful possession of a

tenant, whether such possession is actual or not. Therefore, even if the land

was not in actual possession of the tenant immediately prior to first March,

1974, if it was a tenanted land, it vests in the State Government. That the land

cannot be registered in favour of the tenant who was not in actual possession

immediately prior to first March, 1974, is not relevant for the purpose of

Page 32 of 69

deciding the question as to whether the land stands vested in the State

Government under Section 44 of the Act.

In Nagappa Devanna's case, 1978 (1) KLJ 70 a Division Bench of

Karnataka High Court consisting of Govinda Bhat, C. J. and Lal; J. examining

the very precise question expressed thus : " .... So, what is relevant for the

purpose of the Act and determination of the Tribunal is whether the lands in

respect of which proceedings are taken under Chapter-Ill, were tenanted

lands being cultivated personally by the alleged tenants immediately prior to

1-3-1974. If the land or lands were tenanted lands, to which Section 44 is

attracted, such lands vest in the State Government on 1-3-1974. Section 45

provides that the land or lands which have vested in the State Government

under Section 44 shall be registered in the name of the tenant as occupant of

the land provided that person was cultivating the land personally

immediately prior to the date of vesting viz., 1-3-1974. If there was any

dispossession after 1-3-1974 by the landlord or by the main tenant or a sub-

tenant, it is wholly immaterial and will not affect the right of the tenant

personally cultivating the land immediately prior to 1-3-1974. Therefore,

even assuming that the statement of the appellant was Correctly recorded by

the Tribunal his application could not have been rejected on the ground that

he had ceased to cultivate the land immediately prior to 10-8-1974."

21. UÉÃtÂzÁgÀjUÉ ¨sÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÉÎ ZÁPÀj E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀjUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÉÛ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄRªÀ®è JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð£À wæð£À CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ:-Smt. Reddivara Naramma ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others ILR 2000

KAR 2303, 2000 (4) KarLJ 524 The Land Tribunal is also bound to consider

the application either for granting or for rejecting the occupancy in respect of

such lands. Particularly, in these type of cases, keeping in abeyance of the

applications of the tenants or rejecting Form No. 7 on the ground that the

lands in question have not been regranted in favour of the holders of the

Village Office, virtually defeats the very purpose of the provisions of the Land

Reforms Act. In the light of the foregoing reasons, it is immaterial whether

the lands in question were regranted or not in favour of the holders of the

Page 33 of 69

Village Office and that a duty is cast on the Land Tribunal to consider such

applications of the tenants who are actually cultivating the lands as on 1-3-

1974 and the tenants are entitled for registration of occupancy rights as

provided under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is too

much to expect to keep the applications pending for years together waiting

till the lands are re-granted in favour of the holders of the Village Office.

Assuming for a while that if the lands were not regranted in favour of the

holders of the Village Office, then ultimately it leads that the tenants cannot

seek for grant of occupancy which view cannot be supported.

22. ªÁ¢UÀ¼À UÉÃt ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ°è E°èªÀgÉUÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ PÉÆ£ÉUÁt¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è:-CAzÀÄ 1952 jAzÀ®Æ eÁjAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ UÉÃtÂzÁjPÉAiÀÄ gÀPÀëuÉ PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è ¤µÁ£É ¦-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤µÁ£É Dgï-2 gÀ°è£À, 1968-69 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1969-70 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¥ÀºÀt G¯ÉèÃRzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀzÀÝw ªÁgÀ¸ÁUÀÄ JA§ zÁR¯É¬ÄAzÀ CzÀÄ UÉÃt jÃwAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄÝ 1968 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀQÌAvÀ »AzÉ EzÀÝ UÉÃt PÁ£ÀƤ£À C£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß d«Ää¤AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁPÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DzÉñÀªÀÇ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAvÀ ¥ÀºÀt §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉUÀÆ DzÉñÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß «ÄÃj §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆArgÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ CAvÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀĺÀvÀéªÀÇ E®è JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

Lakshminarayana Hariyachar vs Divisional Commissioner ILR 1986

KAR 532 Bench: Puttaswamy, J Mahendra J “The Tenancy Act enacted in

1952 to regulate the relationship of landlords and tenants of agricultural

Page 34 of 69

lands, impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural lands and incidental

provisions came into force at any rate from 1-1-1954 in the entire old Mysore

area. From this very brief survey, it is apparent that agricultural tenancies in

old Mysore area even where they had their origin in contracts were regulated

by the 1952 Act. The Act seriously interfered with the rights of landlords in

collecting agreed rents, forfeiting tenancies, interfering with the cultivation

of tenants and dispossessing them except under and in accordance with the

provisions made therein. ……………. The Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952 was not a

temporary measure. But, still the State with the avowed object of

safeguarding possession of tenants and preventing their evictions before

enacting comprehensive Land Reforms legislation first enacted the Mysore

Tenancy (Amendment and Continuance of Tenancies) Act, 1957 (Karnataka

Act 16 of 1957) prohibited evictions and dispossession of tenants till the

period specified in Section 4 of that Act, which was extended till 30-6-1966

by Acts 17 of 1959, 4 of 1961, 33 of 1961 and 12 of 1963 enacted from time

to time. We will hereafter refer to these Acts as the 1957 Act Section 142(1A)

of the LR Act introduced by Act No. 14 of 1965 protects those tenants

protected by 1957 Act from eviction and dispossession except in accordance

with that Act.Before the expiry of the period stipulated in the 1957 Act, the

State enacted the LR Act as Act No. 10 of 1962. The LR Act came into force

from 2-10-1965 (vide S.O. No. 3166 dated 13-9-1965). The LR Act, a uniform

law was enacted to regulate agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on

tenants, ceiling on land holdings and for other matters incidental to those

objects………………….. Section 4 of the LR Act is a virtual reproduction of

Section 4 of the 1952 Act Section 5 of the LR Act prohibits the creation of new

tenancies from the appointed day except those that are permitted. Section 14

of the LR Act provides for resumption of lands by landlords in the specified

circumstances. ………… Section 22 of the LR Act providing for two more

grounds for eviction of tenants is a virtual reproduction of Section 15 of the

1952 Act. ……….. Section 14 of the original Act providing for resumptions by

landlords for bona fide and other specified purposes was omitted from 1-3-

1974.”

Smt. Bakulabai vs Shidaraya AIR 1973 Mys 134, (1973) 1 MysLJ, H.B.

Datar, J. “In order to appreciate the respective contentions raised by the

parties in this revision petition, it would be necessary to refer briefly to

certain provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act. Section 14 (1) of the Act

entitles the landlord to make an application for resumption of land from the

Page 35 of 69

tenants. On the application being filed, the court is required to direct an

enquiry and "determine the land or lands" which the landlord will be entitled

to resume, and shall issue a certificate to the landlord to the effect that the

land or lands specified in such certificate have been reserved for resumption

and thereupon the right to resume possession shall be exercisable only in

respect of the lands specified in such certificate and shall not extend to any

other land.”

Basavanneppa Sangappa vs Rajasaheb Mahammadahnif Saheb AIR

1964 Kant 43, AIR 1964 Mys 43 Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection

from Eviction) Act 1961 which came into force on December 30, 1961.

Section 3 of that Act prohibits the eviction of a tenant notwithstanding

anything contained in any law, decree or order of a civil or revenue Court or

of a Tribunal during the period that temporary Act remains in force. ………. If

the law which the State Legislature has made within its own legislative field

forbids the eviction of a tenant for however temporary a period, it would, I

think, be futile for any landlord during that period to ask us to make an order

for that eviction which is temporarily banned by legislation. To take an order

for eviction in that situation would he to authorise something which a

landlord is forbidden from doing so, and it is clear that our jurisdiction

should not be exercised in that way.

Supreme Court reported in case of State of Karnataka and Anr. v.

Uppegouda and Ors. 1997( 3 )SCC 593wherein it has been held that "The

object of Tenancy Act is to protect the tenants to remain in possession and

enjoy it subject to compliance of the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

Contracted tenancy comes to an end and statutory tenancy sets in operation

and so he would be liable for ejectment only on proved grounds of statutory

contravention, the entries of revenue records are self-serving. There was no

order of a competent authority of eviction of tenant for contravention of the

above-mentioned grounds. The proviso, though enables a landlord to obtain

possession on surrender, it must be proved strictly, as several devices would

be used to circumvent the beneficial provision and illiteracy and ignorance of

the tenant would be taken advantage of. It is easy to have the entries made

with the assistance of patwari who had exclusive custody of the records.

There is no proof of eviction of the tenant. The stand taken by the landholder

is not supported by legal setting".

Page 36 of 69

P.G. Eshwarappa vs.M.Rudrappa & Ors.1996( 6 )SCC 96 held that

ejection ofa tenant under a decree obtained prior to the coming intoforce of

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 had come intoforce was illegal and

that he was entitled to restitution ofthe possession illegally taken away

from him. It was heldthat on the date when the Act had come into

force and thetenant was found to be in possession of the land

byoperation of sub-section (1) of Section 22, with a non-obstante clause,

the tenant shall not be evicted from theland held by him except on the

grounds enumerated in clauses(a) to (e) of Section 22.

The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, came into force on 2-10-1965. The

object of the said Act, inter alia, is to terminate the relationship of landlord and

tenant and to confer ownership rights on the tenants. Landlords are prohibited

from evicting their tenants. Section 25 provides for surrender of lands held by a

tenant. In Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr ILR 1975

KAR 739 it is observed that: “ By Section 25 a bar was imposed against surrender

of any land held by a tenant without the previous permission in writing of the

'court'. The Court can grant permission after making enquiry if it is satisfied that

the proposed surrender is bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed the

extent of land which the landlord could have resumed from his tenant under

Section 14. The section further barred the landlords from entering upon the land

surrendered by their tenants without the previous permission in writing obtained

from the Court. Thus there is a prohibition against surrender of any land by a

tenant and a further prohibition against the landlord from entering upon the land

surrendered by the tenant, without the previous permission in writing of the

Court.”

In Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And Anr ILR 1975 KAR

739 it is observed that: “The possession of the suit lands in the eye of law always

remained with the tenants. The entry of defendant 1 on the suit lands is prohibited

by Section 25(1) of the Act. That prohibition is an injunction against landlords not

to enter upon the lands held by tenants without the previous permission in writing

of the Court. Each entry by defendant 1 upon the suit lands constitutes an act of

trespass and a clear invasion of the legal rights of the plaintiffs. When the

plaintiffs have shown that they have a legal right and that legal right is invaded by

the unlawful acts of the defendants, they are entitled to the relief of injunction at

the hands of the Civil Court.”

Page 37 of 69

23. E£ÁªÀÄÄ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjAzÀ vÀ¥ÁàV CxÉÊð¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ:-E£ÁªÀÄÄ JAzÀgÉ K£ÀÄ?, ¸ÀzÀj PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁjUÉ gÀPÀëuÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ? vÀ¹ÝÃPï ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀjUÉ d«Ää£À°è ºÀPÀÄÌ E®è. JA§ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ¥ÀÄà CxÉÊð¹PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ. 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ¹ÝÃPï ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀévÀB JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼Éà M¥ÀÄàvÁÛgÉ. zsÁ«ÄðPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zsÀªÀÄðzÀwÛ E£Á«ÄÛ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 19(1) gÀ°è »ÃUÉ£À߯ÁVzÉ.

The Government shall pay to the inamdar every year so long as the

institution exists as compensation for all the rights of the inamdar vesting in

the State of Karnataka under this Act [the basic annual sum as a Tasdik

allowance]. {Substituted for the words "an amount equal to the amount that

would have been payable to a religious or charitable institution under clause

(iii) of the second proviso to Section 51 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,

1961 (Karnataka Act 10 of 1962) as if the inamdar were a land holder and his

rights in the inam lands had become extinguished and vested in the State

Government under Section 44 of the said Act" by Act No. 18 of 1985 and shall

be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 1-5-1984. }

Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice A.K. Patnaik in the Supreme Court

of India in case of S. Nagaraj (dead) by LRs. Vs B.R. Vasudeva Murthy &

Ors. Disposing of the appeals, the Court on February 08, 2010 ,

Reported in (2010) 3 SCC 353 The findings of the Division Bench of the

High Court in the judgment dated 15.9.1998 in the Writ Appeal that the order

dated 15.6.1979 of the State Government sanctioning the grant of land in

favour of the Sangha was valid and that the Inamdars were only entitled to

the price payable for the land when their claims for registration under

Sections 9 and 10 of the Inam Abolition Act were allowed and that the

Inamdars have waived their right of occupation in the land by entering into

the agreement dated 1.11.1980 and by accepting the price of Rs.10,000/- per

Page 38 of 69

acre deposited by the Sangha and the additional amount paid by the Sangha

were binding not only on the legal representatives of the Inamdars and the

Sangha but also on the State Government. The Revenue Minister,

Government of Karnataka, while considering the application of the Inamdars,

ignored the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court in the judgment

dated 15.9.1998 and took the view in his order dated 22.12.2003 that on the

competent authority granting occupancy right to the Inamdars by the order

dated 23.6.1982, the Inamdars had become the rightful owners of the land

and action would have to be taken to cancel the grant made in favour of the

Sangha. The Judgement of Division Bench of the High Court had not been

disturbed by this Court in SLP and the Minister, Revenue, Government of

Karnataka, could not have taken a view that on the confirmation of the

occupancy rights of the Inamdars, the grant of the land made in favour of the

Sangha was liable to be cancelled.

E£ÁªÀÄÄ JAzÀgÉ K£ÀÄ JA§ §UÉÎ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ CjªÀÅ ªÀÄÆr¸À®Ä F PɼÀV£À «ªÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄdÄgÁAiÀiï ªÀiÁå£ÀÄAiÀÄ¯ï ¤AzÀ G¯ÉèÃT¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

A Inam is a grant by Government for the personal benefit of an individual or

individuals or for religious, charitable or other purposes, or for service

rendered to the State or to a Village community. Lands so granted are held

free of assessment, or subject to a Jodi (light assessment) or quit-rent.

According to the Land Revenue Code the term "inam" or "alienation of land"

means the assignment, in favour of an individual or individuals or of a

religious or a charitable institution, wholly or partially, of the right of

Government to levy land revenue.

EzÉà C®èzÉ E£ÁªÀiï PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ §UÉÎ «ªÀgÀuÉ EgÀĪÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ:-

Sri Muniyellappa vs B.M. Krishnamurthy And Ors. AIR 1977 Kant 137,

ILR 1977 KAR 700, 1977 (1) KarLJ 389 The Inams Abolition Act as stated

earlier, was enacted for the purpose of abolition of Inam tenures and

conversion of such tenures into Ryotwari tenure and in that Process, grant

occupancy rights to the Inamdars and the three classes of tenants. The

purpose of the Land Reforms Act, however, is different. It is a legislation

Page 39 of 69

enacted to effectuate radical agrarian reforms by imposing ceiling of land-

holdings and termination of landlord and tenant relationship in respect of

tenanted lands and further conferment of occupancy rights on tenants

personally cultivating the lands. ……… In our opinion, the dispute between

the parties is not one arising out of agrarian relations. The scope of the Act is

limited to questions arising out of agrarian relations. A person, whose

possession of agricultural lands does not rest on agrarian relations, cannot

invoke the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal under S. 45 of the Land Reforms

Act. Since the appellant, on the basis of his own Pleadings before this Court,

does not base his rights founded on agrarian relations.………………….while

pronouncing on the scope and applicability of the Act in respect of

agricultural lands in former inam villages, observed: "Agricultural lands in

former Inam villages are not excluded from the purview of the Land Reforms

Act. The consequence vesting of inam lands in the State under the Inams

Abolition Act is that the lands absolutely vested in the State and all rights of

inamdar and tenants under him are extinguished and the only right of the

inamdar and his tenants, whether Kadim tenant, permanent tenant or quasi -

permanent tenant, is to make applications for grant of occupancy. The State

thereafter when it grants occupancy under Sections 4, 5 and 6 or 9 of the

Inams Abolitions Act, confers fresh title on the grantees of occupancy. All

prior rights are extinguished, except as provided under Section 9A, where

under in the case of other tenants they are entitled to continue as tenants of

the lands of which they were tenants immediately before the date of vesting."

B. Shankara Rao Badami & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Anr 1969 AIR 453,

1969 SCR (3) 1 The impugned Act provides for the acquisition of rights of

inamdars in inam estates and it is intended to abolish 'all intermediate

holders and to establish direct relationship between the Government and

occupants of land in Inam villages in respect of which notifications had been

issued. The legislation was undertaken as a part of agrarian reform which the

Mysore State Legislature proposed to bring about in the State. Therefore, the

impugned Act is a law providing for the acquisition by the State of any estate

or of any rights therein or for the extinguishment or modification of such

rights as contemplated by Art. 31A and hence, the impugned Act is protected

from attack in any court on the ground that it contravenes Art. 31(2).

In State of Haryana and others v. M.P. Mohla [(2007) 1 SCC 457] Court

has held: The dispute between the parties has to be decided in accordance

Page 40 of 69

with law. What, however, cannot be denied or disputed is that a dispute

between the parties once adjudicated must reach its logical conclusion.

The law on the subject is clearly laid down in The Full Bench of Karnataka

High Court in SRI RANGACHAR v. STATE OF MYSORE, 1966(1) Mys.LJ.

655, which is further quoted in Judgement of Doddamma vs Muniyamma ILR

2005 KAR 568 by Justice V.G. Sabhahit “Section 3 of the Inams Abolition

Act enumerates the consequences of vesting of an Inam in the State of

publication of a notification under Sub-section(4) of Section 1 of the Act in

the Mysore Gazette. All rights, title and interest vested in the Inamdar cease

and stand vested absolutely in the State Government, free from all

encumbrances……………….. Sections 4 and 5 respectively confer rights on the

Kadim tenants and permanent tenants to be registered as occupants.

Sections 7 and 8 provide for the recognition of the rights of holders of minor

inams and for their registration. Section 9 specifies the kinds of lands and

buildings to which the inamdar is entitled to be registered as occupant.

Section 9A confers an identical right on the tenants of the inamdar other than

the tenants entitled to be registered as occupants under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of

the Act. Section 10 deals with the determination of claims under Sections

4,5,6,7,8,9 and 9A and lays down……………………..A tenant found to be in

possession of any land on the first day of July, 1948, shall be presumed to be

a quasi-permanent tenant, unless the Inamdar proves that such tenant is not

a quasi-permanent tenant as defined in Clause(14) of Sub-section (1) of

Section 2”

Doddamma vs Muniyamma ILR 2005 KAR 568 by Justice V.G. Sabhahit

observed that “It is clear from the above said provisions of the Inams

Abolition Act and the provisions of the Land Reforms Act that so far as the

rights of the tenants are concerned, the provisions of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act are similar to the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act though

the provisions may not be similar in respect of the owners of the lands under

Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Inam holders and inamdars under the

Inams Abolition Act. However, so far as the tenants are concerned, the effect

of the above said proceedings is that from the appointed date, the

relationship of the landlord and tenant ceases and the property vests with

the Government and the tenant is entitled to conferment of occupancy right

as per the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.

Page 41 of 69

24. ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ ªÀĺÀvÀé:- ¢£ÁAPÀ 31-12-1986 gÀ°è Cfð ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥ÀÆ«ðPÀgÁzÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MAzÀ£Éà ªÁ¢ gÀAUÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆߧâgÀÄ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀjUÉ (¢:21-11-1983 QÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ) CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå Dgï.Dgï.n. 10/1983-84 JAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀ MAzÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ RqÀvÀ F PÉù£À°è ¤µÁ£É ¦-11 gÀAvÉ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀt £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ PÁgÀtªÁzÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢PÁjUÀ¼À gÀÆ§Ä gÀÆ§Ä CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ ¤µÁ£É ¦-6,7,8 gÀAvÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÄÝ. ¸ÀzÀj ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 41 gÀ°è UÁæªÀÄ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è CqÀVgÀĪÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è DzÀAvÀ ¨É¼ÀªÀtÂUÉ AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, EzÀPÉÌ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀĺÀvÀé«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀQÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ºÀ®ªÀÅ ªÀÄÄaѺÉÆÃV ºÀ®ªÀÅ §»gÀAUÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀƸÀÄzÁgÀuÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 24(1) gÀ°èAiÀÄÆ £ÀqɹgÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ §UÉÎ £ÀqɹgÀĪÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀܼÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F «ZÁgÀªÁV ¸ÀĦæÃA PÉÆÃnð£À wæð£À CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

Mohan Balaku Patil & Ors. vs Krishnoji Bhaurao Hundre AIR 1999 SC

1114, JT 1999 (1) SC 183, 1999 (1) SCALE 191 When in fact the Tribunal

made local enquiry by spot inspection and had come to the conclusion that

Page 42 of 69

the appellants were in possession that factor should have weighed with the

appellate authority, particularly in the face of the admission made by the

respondent that the appellants had constructed the building on the land and

were paying charges in respect of the electric pump set used for irrigating

the land and ought to have held that the appellants were cultivating the land.

In addition, the land in question was shown not to be cultivated by the

respondent as the respondent was residing nowhere the land but at a far

away place and that the land was not cultivated personally by the owner and

the persons cultivating the land were not members of their family nor there

was any evidence that the appellants were servants or hired labourers on

wages and ought to have on that basis held the appellants as deemed tenant

in respect of the land. The presumption arising under Section 133 of the Act

in respect of the entries made in the record of rights stood displaced by the

finding of fact recorded that the appellants were in actual possession of the

land and were cultivating the same. In the face of such an admission made by

the respondent it is difficult to accept the finding recorded by the appellate

authority as affirmed by the High Court that in view of the entries made in

the record of rights the appellants could not be stated to be in possession of

the land on the relevant date nor was cultivating the same.

25. ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁgÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ; CxÁðvï §qÀð£ï D¥sóï ¥ÀÆæ¥sóï AiÀiÁgÀ ªÉÄðzÉ:- £ÁªÀÅ ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°è EzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä, ªÀÄÆ® PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ zÁR¯É, £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß E°èªÀgÉUÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå ºÉÆgÀºÁQ®è JA§AvÉ EgÀĪÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀiË£À, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D§UÉÎAiÀÄ M¦àPÉƼÀÄî«PÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÆ® CfðUÉ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ §®ªÁzÀ ¸ÁPÁë÷åzÁgÀªÁVzÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°è E®è JAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ §qÀð£ï DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁAUÀzÀ wæð£À CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

Page 43 of 69

SUPREME COURT IN NARASAMMA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA (2009)

Taking into consideration the findings of fact on the question of possession

arrived at by the High Court as well as the Land Tribunal that the appellants

were in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute and considering the

admission made by the landlord/respondent in earlier recovery proceedings

relating to arrears of rent that the appellants were tenants in respect of the

land in dispute and considering the fact that on the relevant date of coming

into force of the Act, viz., on 1st of March, 1974, the appellants were in

possession of the land in dispute, it is conclusively established the appellants

were tenants in respect of the land in dispute and the entries in the Record of

Rights clearly show that the appellants were in continuous possession of the

land in dispute and the nature of cultivation was gutha (rent) and further, in

the absence of any material produced by the respondent to show that in fact

the appellants were not tenants in respect of the land in dispute, the

appellants had acquired occupancy right in respect of the land in dispute.

………….. The onus was on the respondent to show by producing material that

the appellants had not acquired any status of occupancy right although they

were found to be in continuous possession of the land in dispute. Since the

respondent had failed to produce any material or document to prove that the

appellants had not acquired any status in respect of the land in dispute and

had failed to show that the entries in the Record of Rights were wrong, there

is no ground to reject the claim of the appellants for conferring status of

occupancy right holder in respect of the land in dispute. …………… The entries

in the revenue record cannot create any title in respect of the land in dispute,

but it certainly reflects as to who was in possession of the land in dispute on

the date the name of that person had been entered in the revenue record.

…………. The name of the appellants should be registered as an occupancy

right holder in respect of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the application of

the appellants for recording their names as occupancy right holders in

respect of the land in dispute shall stand allowed.

Justice G G Bhat in Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And

Anr. ILR 1975 KAR 739, 1974 (2) KarLJ 484The Karnataka Land Reforms

Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act) came into force on 2-10-1965. The

object of the said Act, inter alia, is to terminate the relationship of landlord

and tenant and to confer ownership rights on the tenants. Landlords are

Page 44 of 69

prohibited from evicting their tenants. Section 14 of the Act permitted

resumption subject to the terms and conditions laid down therein. Section 14

has now been deleted by the Karnataka Amendment Act No. 1 of 1974.

Section 25 provides for surrender of lands held by a tenant. The said section,

before it was amended by Karnataka Amendment Act No. 1 of 1974 read

thus:"25 Surrender of land by tenant:--(1) No tenant shall surrender any land

held by him as such, and no landlord shall enter upon the land surrendered

by the tenant, without the previous permission in writing of the court.(2)

Permission under Sub-section (1) shall be granted if, after making such

inquiry as may be prescribed, the court is satisfied that the proposed

surrender is bona fide and the land surrendered does not exceed the extent

of land which landlord could have resumed from his tenant under Section 14;

in other cases, the permission shall be refused....."By Section 25 a bar was

imposed against surrender of any land held by a tenant without the previous

permission in writing of the 'court'. The Court can grant permission after

making enquiry if it is satisfied that the proposed surrender is bona fide and

the land surrendered does not exceed the extent of land which the landlord

could have resumed from his tenant under Section 14. The section further

barred the landlords from entering upon the land surrendered by their

tenants without the previous permission in writing obtained from the Court.

Thus there is a prohibition against surrender of any land by a tenant and a

further prohibition against the landlord from entering upon the land

surrendered by the tenant, without the previous permission in writing of the

Court.

Justice G G Bhat in Thunga Bai And Ors. vs Vishalakshi Heggadthi And

Anr. ILR 1975 KAR 739, 1974 (2) KarLJ 484When Govinda Naika and

Badiya Naika were admittedly the tenants of the suit lands up to 1971 when

the Act was in force and there has been no sur-render by them under Section

25 which alone can be taken cognisance of by the Courts, the Court below

should have drawn the legal presumption that their possession has

continued. In order to obtain the relief of injunction it was not necessary for

the plaintiffs to produce documents showing that their possession continued

even after 1971. The possession of the suit lands in the eye of law always

remained with the tenants. The entry of defendant 1 on the suit lands is

prohibited by Section 25(1) of the Act. That prohibition is an injunction

against landlords not to enter upon the lands held by tenants without the

Page 45 of 69

previous permission in writing of the Court. Each entry by defendant 1 upon

the suit lands constitutes an act of trespass and a clear invasion of the legal

rights of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs have shown that they have a legal

right and that legal right is invaded by the unlawful acts of the defendants,

they are entitled to the relief of injunction at the hands of the Civil Court.

Justice D Chandrashekhar, Justice P Bopanna in Puttegowda v. State of

Karnataka and Ors., AIR 1980 Kant 102, ILR 1980 KAR 160, 1980 (1)

KarLJ 281 wherein it was held that.-"Mere permission to surrender without

delivery of possession by the tenant does not put an end to the relationship

of landlord and tenant. Delivery of possession by the tenant to the landlord

and his acceptance of possession are essential to effect the surrender. Where

it was not proved that the tenant had delivered possession of the land

notwithstanding grant of permission to surrender, but was found to be in

possession even after the grant of permission to surrender, held that he

continued to be a tenant and was entitled to grant of occupancy right".

Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar, Vasantha Nanasaheb Pawar And Ors. vs

Piraji Pandu Patil ILR 2006 KAR 2061, 2006 (3) KarLJ 172 In support of

his case, the tenant has examined two independent neighbouring witnesses

apart from examining himself. Both the said witnesses have deposed in

categorical terms that 1st respondent herein is cultivating the property in

question as tenant. Though they are cross-examined by the landlords,

nothing worth is elicited in their cross-examination so as to discard their

evidence, Thus, the evidence of the neighbouring witnesses fully supports the

case of the tenant 1st respondent herein. ………………………………….. Merely

because the revenue entries stand in the name of the petitioners would not

mean that there is no relationship of landlords and tenant between the

parties. The revenue entries do not take away the established case of the 1^st

respondent The presumption arising out of the revenue records stand

rebutted in view of consistent, cogent and clinching evidence relating to the

1st respondent's possession over the property in question as a

tenant……………….. No neighbouring land holders are examined by the land

lords on their behalf. The said admissions by BW-1 would amply make it

clear that they are absentee land owners and that they have never cultivated

the land In question.

Page 46 of 69

Justice H Narayan, Hanumanthappa Gonappa Talwar vs The Special

Deputy Commissioner 1998 (1) KarLJ 683 It is now settled by the ruling

of these decisions that whether an application of the tenant filed in Form 7 is

rejected or whether an order of the Tribunal holding that a particular

applicant is not a tenant, it is the duty of the Tribunal to give a finding

whether the particular land is a tenanted land or not as on the date of coming

into force of the Act, that is the legally vesting and that determines the nature

of the land.

26. ªÁ¢UÀ¼À PÉøÀ£ÀÄß gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è£À DAiÀÄÝ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ ªÀĺÀvÀé:-

¸ÀA

ªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉýPÉ ¸ÁgÀĪÀ ªÀĺÀvÀé

1gÀAUÀ¥Àà ©£ï £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà1. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 50-55 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

2. CzÀPÀÆÌ ªÀÄÄAZÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.

3. ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄå £ÀªÀjUÉ ªÁgÀ PÉÆlÄÖ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ wÃjzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁgÀPÉÆlÄÖ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

4.ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ ªÁ®UÀzÀ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.

5. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖ PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ.

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°£À°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ZÁPÀj E£ÁAzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ, CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÁgÀPÉÌ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁw£À ªÀgÀ¸ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ «£ÀB. ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ 1968-69 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1969-70 gÀ°è£À ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è£À £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå AiÀiÁgÀÄ JAzÀÄ «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

CAvÀºÀ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå ¨ÉÃgÉ EzÀÝ°è CªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄìzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ ºÉýPÉ PÉÆr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

CzÉà ¸Á°£À ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è£À G½ªÉÄzÁgÀgÀ PÁ®A £À°è §gÀĪÀ ``ªÁgÀ ¸ÁUÀÄ'' JA§ «ZÁgÀPÉÌ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «ªÀgÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ E°è £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà

Page 47 of 69

6. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è £Á£À®èzÉ ²æúÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ UÉÆëAzÀgÁdÄ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ 2 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉ ..... ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.

7. ²æà ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉAPÀl¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§j£À°èAiÉÄà ªÀÄ£ÉPÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.

8. F ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÁzÀ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

9. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¥ÀºÀt §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®Ä1. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀºÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

2. ªÀÄĤ¸Áé«Ä J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀjUÉ PÉÆÃgÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀ°®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî.

3. ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß G½ªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî.

4. 1968-69 gÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ C®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

gÀAUÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÉÄà C®è J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ®Ä ¸ÀAzsÀ§ðzÀ°èAiÉÄà ``£À£Àß vÀAzÉ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀºÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.'' JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÉÆA¢UÉ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀëzÀ §UÉÎ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÉà vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéµÀÖ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÀÄĤ¸Áé«Ä ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ D §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÆß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è£À G¯ÉèÃRUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQëUÉ vÉÆÃj¹®è.

1968-69 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÀ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà CxÀªÀ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀÆ«ðPÀgÀÄ JA§ §UÉÎ J°èAiÀÄÆ G¯ÉèÃR«®è CxÀªÀ CªÀgÀ ªÁzÀªÀÇ C®è.

¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À M¥ÀÄà«PÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ¤gÁPÀgÀuÉ ¸Áé¨Á«PÀªÁV zÀéAzÀéPÁjAiÀiÁV®èzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄÄ M¥À৺ÀÄzÁzÀ CA±ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

Page 48 of 69

2UÉÆëAzÀgÁdÄ ©£ï ¯Éà ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå1. F d«ÄãÀÄ FUÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁvÀ£ÀPÁ®¢AzÀ®Æ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 80-90 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ®Æ C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉ.

2. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 30-40 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉ.

3. 1968-69 £Éà ¸Á®ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 69-70 £Éà ¸Á®ÄUÀ½UÉ £À£Àß vÁvÀ£ÁzÀ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ F d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÀºÀt EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

4. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¥ÀºÀt AiÀÄ£ÀÄß §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ§ðzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå¤UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

5. HrðUÉgÉ ºÉÆç½ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F d«ÄäUÉ ¨ÉÃn ¤Ãr UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¥ÁnøÀªÁ®Ä:-1. £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀiÁzÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÁUÀ°Ã gÀAUÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉAPÀl¥Àà£ÀªÀgÁUÀ°Ã ¸ÀzÀj UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ZÁPÀj ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.

2. JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀiÁzÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ°è ªÉÄüÀªÁzÀå

ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ JA§ CA±ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà PÉøÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀjAiÀÄÄwÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°£À°è ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ZÁPÀj ªÀiÁr®è JA§ §UÉÎ ¥Àæ²ß¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ZÁPÀj E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀgÀÄ DVzÀÝgÀÆ JA§ §UÉÎ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÀ°è ©£Áß©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ«®è.

DzÀgÉ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ C®è JA§ §UÉÎAiÉÄà ¸ÀzÀj JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀnøÀªÁ®Ä zÁn EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ J°èAiÀÄÆ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ zÁR¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è£À F PɼÀV£À CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀ «ªÀgÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

1. 1968-69 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1969-70 gÀ°è£À £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉUɸÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «ªÀgÀuÉ E®è.

2. ¨sÀƸÀÄzÁgÀuÉ PÁAiÉÄÝ eÁjAiÀiÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀºÁPÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JA§ ¤§ðAzÀ«zÀÝgÀÆ CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ CzÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ vÉUÉAiÀįÁVzÉ JA§ «ªÀgÀuÉ E®è.

3. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ

Page 49 of 69

ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ wÃj ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄüÀªÁzÀå ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.

3. ¸ÀzÀj £ÁUÀgÁdÄ gÀªÀjUÉ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ¹ÝÃPï ¨sÀvÉå ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå. vÀAzÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ EzÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj.4. ¸ÀzÀj ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄüÀªÁzÀå ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî.

PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 128 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 129 C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¥ÀºÀt £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JA§ §UÉÎ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÁzÀªÀÇ C®è «ªÀgÀªÀÇ C®è.

4. zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀjUÉ vÀ¹ÝÃPï ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ®ß°è M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ. vÀ¹ÝÃPï ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀªÀgÀÄ ZÁPÀj E£ÁªÀÄÄ d«Ää£À DzÁAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝ fêÀ£ÁzÁgÀPÉÌ §zÀ¯ÁV ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÉvÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀ£ÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ DPÉëÃ¥ÁºÀð «ZÁgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À M¥ÀÄà«PÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ¤gÁPÀgÀuÉ ¸Áé¨Á«PÀªÁV zÀéAzÀéPÁjAiÀiÁV®èzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄÄ M¥À৺ÀÄzÁzÀ CA±ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

3aPÀÌ wªÀÄäPÀÌ GgÀÄ¥sóï ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå

1. ªÀÄÆ®vÀB £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄ¥Àà JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ.

2. ¨É¼ÉzÀ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ°è CzÀð ¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄ¥Àà

ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄ¥Àà ªÁgÀPÉÌ ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉýzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°£À°è EzÀ£ïß C®èUÀ¼É¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

Page 50 of 69

£ÀªÀjUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.

3. ªÁådåUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA§ªÁzÀÝjAzÀ UÉÃt ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ.

4. £ÁªÀÅ ºÀÄnÖ¤AzÀ®Æ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ PÀ¸ÀÄ§Ä ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛêÉ.

¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®Ä1. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀAzsÀ§ðzÀ°è gÀAUÀ¥Àà, ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå, ªÉAPÀl¥Àà (PÉÆÃgÀÄ) mɣɤì DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À M¥ÀÄà«PÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ¤gÁPÀgÀuÉ ¸Áé¨Á«PÀªÁV zÀéAzÀéPÁjAiÀiÁV®èzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ»vÀÄAiÀÄÄ M¥À৺ÀÄzÁzÀ CA±ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

4UÀAUÀgÀAUÀAiÀÄå ©£ï ¯Éà £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà1. FUÀ ¸ÀzÀå ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå £ÀªÀgÀ ¥Àwß aPÀÌwªÀÄäPÀÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀAUÀ¥Àà JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

2. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå wÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÁVªÉ.

3. gÀAUÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ §AzÁV¤AzÀ®Æ CªÀgÉà ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.4. £À£Àß w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ jÃwAiÀÄ°è F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀAUÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ ªÉAPÀl¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.

5. F d«ÄäUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀAvÉ EgÀĪÀ PɼÀ¨ÁUÀzÀ°è £À£Àß d«ÄägÀÄvÉÛ, £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÁådåzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÉÛ.

6. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢

¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À M¥ÀÄà«PÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À ¤gÁPÀgÀuÉ ¸Áé¨Á«PÀªÁV zÀéAzÀéPÁjAiÀiÁV®èzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄÄ M¥À৺ÀÄzÁzÀ CA±ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«Ää£À ¨ÁdÄzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë AiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß C®èUÀ¼ÉAiÀÄĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀĺÀvÀéPÁj CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°£À°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÉÆgÀPÉqÀ«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

Page 51 of 69

ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà ºÉÃgï PÀnAUï ±É®Æå£ï £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.

7. ªÁådåzÀ d«Ää£À ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ°è CzÀð¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀAUÀ¥Àà, ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉAPÀl¥Àà ªÀÄƪÀgÀÄ ¨É¼ÉzÀ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄ°è CzÀð¨ÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. CzÀgÀ »AzÉ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.

¥ÁnøÀªÁ®Ä:-

1. gÀAUÀ¥Àà ªÉAPÀl¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 25 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ¸ÀwÛzÁÝgÉA§ÄzÀÄ ¸Àj EgÀÄvÉÛ.

2. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà C£ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ¥Àwß ¸Ë¨ÁUÀåªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

27. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è£À CªÀgÀ C¸ÀvÀåvÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À PÉøÀÄ HfðvÀªÀ®èªÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ:-

¸ÀA ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀĺÀvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁgÀÄvÀÛzÉ

1PÉ.ºÉZï. £ÁUÀgÁdÄ ©£ï ¯Éà ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà

1. £ÀªÀÄä vÁvÀ ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ PÁåvÀìAzÀæzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ¸Áé«Ä zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÉÄüÀªÁzÀå £ÀÄr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13, 5-15

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ZÁPÀj E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß M¦àPÉƼÀÄîvÁÛgÉ.

E£ÁªÀÄÄ jf¸ÀÖgï JPÁì÷ÖçPïÖ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹®è.

vÀ¹ÝÃPï ¥ÀqÉzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÉÄð£À ºÀPÉÌ÷Î CºÀðgÀ®è JA§

Page 52 of 69

UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð£ÀA§gï 192 gÀ°è 2-01 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.

2. F zÉêÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ZÁPÀj ªÀiÁrzÀÝPÉÌ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ vÀ¹ÝÃPï jf¸ÀÖgï JPÀìmÁæPÀÖ£ÀÄß ¤µÁ£É 22 gÀAvÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

3. £ÀªÀÄä vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA. 13 gÀ°è 5-15 UÀÄAmÉà ¸À.£ÀA. 192 gÀ°è 2-01 UÀÄAmÉ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉA§ÄzÀPÉÌ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. FUÀ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ºÁdgï ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

4. JQì©mï Dgï-2 £À°è 68-69 , 69-70 £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà, wªÀÄäAiÀÄå CªÀgÀÄ ªÁgÀ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸Àj.

5. DzÀgÉ ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ¥ÁàV UÁæªÀÄ ¯ÉQÌUÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀÄÝ vÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Àj¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¸Àé ¥ÉæÃgÀuɬÄAzÀ ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

6. ¸ÀzÀj vÀ¥ÁàV ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢PÁjUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ C¦Ã®Ä ºÁQgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

7. ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£À DzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É CzÉà eÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è £ÁªÉà PÀnÖgÀĪÀ ¸ÀtÚ ªÀÄ£É EzÉ. D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ «¹ÛÃtð £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EA¢UÀÆ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr®è. 1994 gÀ°è FVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀnÖPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

8. F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ 1994 gÀ°è PÀnÖzÀÝ®è 1954 gÀ°è ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ PÀnÖzÀ

«ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ºÉýPɬÄAzÀ¯Éà ¥ÁgÀªÀIJð¸À§ºÀÄzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀPÉÌ zÁR¯É E®è.

¸ÁQë vÀ£Àß ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉøÀß §UÉÎ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ zÁnAiÀÄ°è zÀéAzÀé ¤®ÄªÀÅ ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MªÉÄä ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄªÉ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ E£ÉÆߪÉÄä ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹®è J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ.

£ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¥ÀºÀt £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ£ÀÄß M¥ÀÄàvÁÛgÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è vÉUɹgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JA§ «ªÀgÀuÉ E®è.

¥ÀºÀt £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ vÉUɸÀ®Ä C¦Ã®Ä ºÁQ®è JAzÀÄ M¥ÀÄàvÁÛgÉ.

vÀªÀÄä ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«Ää£À°è 1994 gÀ°è ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖPÉÆArgÀÄªÉ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. D jÃwAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ mÉæ¸ï ¥Á¸ï DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄgÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¢®è JAzÀÄ CªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è£À «ZÁgÀPÉÌ C¸Áé¨Á«PÀªÁzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÁ¸À ¸ÁÜ£À PÁåvÀìAzÀæ ¥ÉÃmÉ ©Ã¢ JAzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ M¥ÀÄàvÁÛgÉ.

Page 53 of 69

ªÀÄ£É JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀļÁîVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

8. FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÉà ºÀ¸ÀÄ PÀgÀÄ PÀnÛPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÉà PÀnÖ PÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉݪÀÅ.

9. F d«ÄäUÉ JAzÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÁUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÁUÀ°Ã PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÀnÖ®è JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÁÌV 2007-08 2008-09 PÉÌ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÀnÖ gÀ²Ãw ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸Á¯ÁVzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

10. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä £À£Àß CtÚ vÀªÀÄäA¢gÀÄ PÁåvÀìAzÀæzÀ ¥ÉÃmÉ ©Ã¢AiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ¸À.£ÀA. 13 gÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÁ¸À«zÀÝgÀÄ.

11. £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶ׹ F ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀiÁ£ÀÄß ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¸ÀĪÀ G¢ÝñÀå¢AzÀ F CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

12. £ÀªÀÄä vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÀ PÁ®zÀ°è ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ §UÉÎ zÁPÀ¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÉAiÉÄà JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀ°®è JA§ÄzÀÄ £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¸ÀAzsÀ§ðzÀ°è zÁPÀ¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀ°®è JA§zÀjAzÀ zÁPÀ¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹®è.

MmÁÖgÉAiÀiÁV ¸ÁQëAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ zÁnAiÀÄÄ C¸Áé¨Á«PÀvɬÄAzÀ PÀÆrzÀÄÝ, vÀªÀÄä ºÉýPÉUÀÆ ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ°£À ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶UÀÆ vÁ¼É EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. vÀªÀÄä ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÁvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

28. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À°èAiÉÄà ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä CªÀgÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ «ªÀgÀ:-

¸ÀA ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ

ªÀåwjPÀÛ ºÉýPÉ «ªÀgÀ

K£ÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀÄvÀÛzÉ

Page 54 of 69

1 ¢£ÁAPÀ 25-05-2011 gÀ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°£À°è PÉ.ºÉZï. £ÁUÀgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ ``PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÉÝêÉA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀļÁîVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸Á®ªÀ£ÁßV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉƼÀî¯ÁVgÀÄvÉÛà «£ÀB EzÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀªÀ®è ¸ÀzÀj PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Á® JA§ £É¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁrzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸Á® JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸Àj.''

¢£ÁAPÀ 06-06-2008 gÀ°è£À DqÀðgï ²Ãmï ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢PÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀAvÉ `` F §UÉÎ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. vÁªÀÅ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤dªÉAzÀÄ CzÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ.''

¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî «ªÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ºÀªÁå¸ÀzÀªÀgÁVzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ±ÀÈvÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EªÀgÀ ¸ÁPÁë÷åzÁgÀªÀÅ £ÀA©PÉUÉ AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁzÀÄzÀÝ®èªÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

Page 55 of 69

2 ¢£ÁAPÀ 22-07-2011 gÀ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°£À°è PÉ.ºÉZï. £ÁUÀgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄAvÉ `` PɸÀgÀĪÀÄqÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄzÀ±Àð£ï ±ÉëAUïì JA§ ¸É®Æå£ï (PËëjPÀ CAUÀr) £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀļÁîVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

PÉù£À PÁ¸ï mÉÊl¯ï £À°è ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «¼Á¸À PÉÃgÁ¥sóï ¸ÀÄzÀ±Àð£ï J¯ÉQÖçPÀ¯ï ºÉÃgï qÀæ¸À¸ï ¥ÉÃmÉ ©Ã¢ PÁåvÀìAzÀæ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî «ªÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ºÀªÁå¸ÀzÀªÀgÁVzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀÄ ±ÀÈvÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EªÀgÀ ¸ÁPÁë÷åzÁgÀªÀÅ £ÀA©PÉUÉ AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁzÀÄzÀÝ®èªÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

3 ¢£ÁAPÀ 14-03-2011 gÀ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÁ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæzÀ 3 £Éà ¥ÀÄlzÀ°è PÉ.ºÉZï. £ÁUÀgÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ »ÃUÉ£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. ``¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ zÀ£À PÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄÃPÉ, PÀÄjUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è PÀ®Äè ZÀ¥Ààr¬ÄAzÀ

¢£ÁAPÀ 22-07-2011 gÀ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°£À°è

£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä £À£Àß CtÚ vÀªÀÄäA¢gÀÄ PÁåvÀìAzÀæzÀ ¥ÉÃmÉ ©Ã¢AiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

£ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ¸À.£ÀA.13 gÀ°è ªÁ¸À«zÀÝgÀÄ.

2001-02 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è ¤ Dgï.10 gÀ°è ªÀÄ£É £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÀÄÝ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä

EªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÁ ºÉýPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Ánà ¸ÁªÁ°£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ªÀåvÁå¸ÀUÀ½zÀÄÝ ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉ E®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ EgÀĪÀÅzÁV ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀßzÀ°è C¸À¥sóÀ®gÀÄ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀéµÀÖªÁV UÉÆÃZÀj¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EªÀgÀ ¸ÁPÁë÷åzÁgÀªÀÅ £ÀA©PÉUÉ AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁzÀÄzÀÝ®èªÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

Page 56 of 69

¤°è¹zÀ ºÀ¼Éà ªÀÄAl¥À ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁvÀ ªÀÄĤ¸ÁéªÀÄAiÀÄå £ÀªÀgÀÄ PÀnÖ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀ°è £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄ¼É ©¹®Ä EzÁÝUÀ «±ÁæAw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛêÉ.

vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ fêÀAvÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

29. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ªÀÄÄRå zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è£À ªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀªÁzÀ ªÀĺÀvÀé

¸ÀA zÁR¯É «ªÀgÀ ªÀĺÀvÀé

1 1968-69 jAzÀ 1972-73 gÀ ¥ÀºÀt ¤.¦1

ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁgÀ(¨ÁrUÉ) ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ¥ÀzÀÝwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è ``ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå'' JA§ eÁUÀzÀ°è ``AiÀÄ'' CPÀëgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ``0'' ``vÀ'' JAzÀÄ w¢Ý ``gÁAiÀÄ'' JAzÀÄ 1970-71 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1971-72 gÀ°è ¸ÉÃj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¸ÀéµÀתÁV UÉÆÃZÀj¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1972-73 gÀ°è AiÀÄÆ CzÉÃjwAiÀÄ°è ¸Àé®à §zÀ¯ÁzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è w¢ÝgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

2 vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀjUÉ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀ ¥ÀvÀæ

UÁæªÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ C¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀ §UÉÎ ±ÀÆævÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

3 PÀAzÁAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢PÁj gÀÆ§Ä gÀÆ§Ä ºÉýPÉ

EzÀgÀ°è£À ºÉüÀPÉ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ, zÁ¸À¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀÄ PÁåvÀìAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è£À E£ÁAw d«ÄãÀ£Àß ¥ÀºÀt §gɹPÉƼÀî®

Page 57 of 69

Cfð PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀ ºÀÄPÀÄÌA £ÀA§gï Dgï.Dgï.n.(AiÀÄÄ) 482/81-82 vÁ 13-01-1982 gÀ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄÛgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ N¢ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ¥ÀPÀÌzÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýPÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄRªÁzÀÄzÁÝVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ±ÀÈvÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.1. ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ Dfð ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ2. F §UÉÎ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¸Áé¢Ã£À ªÁ¢UÀ¼À §½ EvÀÄÛ JA§ÄzÀÄ.3. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£À aPÀÌ¥Àà wªÀÄäAiÀÄå£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀ°è »AzÉ ¥ÀºÀt EvÀÄÛ JA§ÄzÀÄ.4. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 50 ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ ¸ÁUÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.5. ¥ÀºÀt £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ M¦àUÉ E®èzÉ §zÀ¯ÁVzÉ

4 PÀAzÁAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢PÁj gÀÆ§Ä gÀÆ§Ä ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ

ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EzÀÄ ±ÀÈvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

5 05-05-1983 gÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ

ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EzÀÄ ±ÀÈvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

6 16-07-1985 gÀ ºÉýPÉ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢PÁj gÀÆ§Ä gÀƧÄ

ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EzÀÄ ±ÀÈvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ EzÀÄ ªÉAPÀl¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀAUÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ

7 Dgï.Dgï.n 10/83-84 ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À®Ä PÉÆlÖ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ CfðUÀ¼À §UÉÎ

1983-84 gÀ®èAiÉÄà ¥ÀºÀt £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ CAzÀgÉ jÃUÁæAmï UÁV vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÉøÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀÄ C¥ÀÆtðªÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ±ÀÈvÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÁ¢UÀ¼À CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ªÉâPÉUÉ PÀ½¹ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ

Page 58 of 69

«ZÁgÀuÁ DqÀðgï ²Ãmï vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ

dgÀÄV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ©lÄÖ ªÀåxÀð PÁ® ºÀgÀt ªÀiÁr UÉÃtÂzÁgÀjUÉ «¼ÀA§ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ±ÀÈvÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

8 ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1999 QÌAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¯ÉQÌUÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢PÁjUÀ¼À gÀÆ§Ä gÀÆ§Ä §gɹgÀĪÀ UÁæªÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ

EzÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JwÛ vÉÆÃgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

9 ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ CfðAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¤§AzÀPÀjUÉ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 07-09-2010 gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

10 ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ CfðAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢PÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ

ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

Page 59 of 69

¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¤§AzÀPÀjUÉ §gÉ¢gÀĪÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 04-09-2010 gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

11 vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ (Q.±ÉæÃ). N.J¸ï. 145/1984 gÀ°è£À 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ zÁªÉ ªÀeÁ DzÀ §UÉÎ PÁ¦.

¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ°è »ÃUÉ£À߯ÁVzÉ ``Under these circumstances no purpose

will be served by keeping this suit

pending just to entertain one or another

I.A.'s which are basically without any

merits, No question of right, title or

interest is involved in this case.'' F «ªÀgÀ¢AzÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ºÀQÌ£À §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÉà F ¤zÁðgÀPÉÌ §AzÀ §UÉÎAiÀÄ£ÀÄß w½¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀåxÀðªÁV mÉÊl¯ï UÁV ºÀªÀt¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ

12 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉøÀÄ ¸ÀA. ¹.Dgï.¦ 1381 jAzÀ 1383 /1996 gÀ 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀeÁ DzÀ j«µÀ£ï Cfð.

N.J¸ï. 145/1984 gÀ°è£À ªÀÄzÀåAvÀgÀ ªÀeÁUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß JwÛ »rzÀ §UÉÎ vÉÆÃgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

13 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉøÀÄ ¸ÀA. jmï 5168/1982 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ

vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå L.J£ï.J(AiÀÄÄ.J¯ï.Dgï.JA) 150+150J/1979-80 gÀ°è zÀ£ÁAPÀ 06-01-1982 gÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á®Ì£Éà ªÁ¢ UÀAUÀt£ÀªÀgÀÄ 30-12-1983 gÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ºÉÊPÉÆÃnð¤AzÀ ¥ÀqÉ

Page 60 of 69

¢gÀvÁÛgÉ.

14 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉøÀÄ ¸ÀA. jmï 15303/1985 gÀ°è£À DzÉñÀzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ

ªÁ¢UÀ¼À d«Ää£À ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀvÉUÉ gÀPÀëuÉAiÀÄ DzÉñÀ ¤Ãr, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå L.J£ï.J (AiÀÄÄ.J¯ï.Dgï.JA) 150+150J/1979-80 gÀ°è zÀ£ÁAPÀ 06-01-1982 gÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀåAvÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è vÀqÉ»rzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 04-08-1986 gÀ°è C¦Ã¯ÉÃmï mÉæöʧÆå£À¯ï UÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

15 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉøÀÄ ¸ÀA. jmï 8686/1991 gÀ°è£À DzÉñÀzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ

vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À £ÀªÀÄÆ£É 1 CfðUÉ »A§gÀºÀ ¤Ãr, ¥ÀæPÀgÀt vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå L.J£ï.J(AiÀÄÄ.J¯ï.Dgï.JA) 150+150J/1979-80 gÀ°è zÀ£ÁAPÀ 06-01-1982 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ «¯Éà DVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ºÁQgÀĪÀ jmï Cfð EzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F CfðAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É-1 ºÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤«ðªÁzÀ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DVAzÁUÉÎ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢PÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆlÖ §UÉÎ ±ÀÈvÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj 30-08-1993 gÀ°è DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁQgÀĪÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå «¯Éà ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉñÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

16 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉøÀÄ ¸ÀA. jmï 28178/91 gÀ°è£À

vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÉÄîä£À« ¥Áæ¢PÁgÀzÀ ªÀÄzÀåAvÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ºÁQgÀĪÀ jmï CfðAiÀÄ°è

Page 61 of 69

DzÉñÀzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ

¥ÀæPÀgÀt gÀAUÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉAPÀl¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV DzÉñÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

17 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉøÀÄ ¸ÀA. jmï 23971-973/1998 gÀ°è£À DzÉñÀzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ

DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À°è wêÀiÁð¤¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 01-09-1998 gÀ°è DzÉñÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ

18 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉøÀÄ ¸ÀA. Qæ«Ä£À¯ï jmï 2646/2004 gÀ°è£À DzÉñÀzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ

vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆðøÀgÀÄ PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è ¤§ðAzÀ«zÀÝgÀÆ PÉ®ªÀÅ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆðøÀgÀ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ±Á«ÄïÁV Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ JAzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JwÛ vÉÆÃjzÉ. 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÆøÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ

19 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ PÉøÀÄ ¸ÀA. jmï £ÀA. 17365/2007 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ

PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è ¤§ðAzÀ«zÀÝgÀÆ PÉ®ªÀÅ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉÆðøÀgÀ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ±Á«ÄïÁV Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ JAzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JwÛ vÉÆÃjzÉ. 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÆøÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁUÉƽ¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

21 ¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ PÉøÀÄ ¸ÀA. L.J£ï.J

¨sÀÆ£ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ 1997 gÀªÀgÉUÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀÄä£É PÁ® ºÀgÀtªÁV

Page 62 of 69

AiÀÄÄ.J¯ï.Dgï.JA. 150 + 150(J) /79-80 gÀ DqÀðgï ²Ãmï

«¼ÀA§ªÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ±ÀÈvÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

30. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ ªÀÄÄRå zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è£À ªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀªÁzÀ ªÀĺÀvÀé

¸ÀA zÁR¯É «ªÀgÀ

ªÀĺÀvÀé

1 ¤µÁ£É Dgï-1 UÉÃt Cfð

UÉÃt CfðAiÀÄ°è UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ EvÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÉÆA¢zÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹®è.

UÉÃt CfðAiÀÄ°è UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ, DzÀgÉ vÀªÀÄä ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ZÁPÀj E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀgÀÄ J£ÀßvÁÛgÉ. zÀéAzÀé ¤®ÄªÀÅ.

2 ¤µÁ£É Dgï-2 ¥ÀºÀtÂ

JQì©mï Dgï-2 gÀ°è ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀºÀt ¥sóÉÆÃdðjÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ JA§ CPÀëgÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¥É¤ß£À°è §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¯Éʤ£À «¹ÛÃtðzÀ ªÀåvÁå¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §gÀªÀtÂUÉ ªÀåvÁå¸ÀzÀ°è CzÀgÀ ¥sóÉÆÃdðjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁt §ºÀÄ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è «¯ÉÃeï CPËAmÉAmï JA§ DAUÀè ¨ÁµÉAiÀÄ ¹Ã®Ä ºÉƸÀzÁzÀ PÀA¥ÀÆåljÃPÀÈvÀ ¹Ã¯ÁVzÀÄÝ 1968-69 jAzÀ 1972-73 gÀªÀgÉUÉ CzÉà ¹Ã®£ÀÄß ¸À»AiÀÄ£ïß ºÁQgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ¸À» ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ eÁUÀzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ªÀåvÁå¸À ¢AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¹Ã®Ä 1968 gÀ°èAiÉÄà EvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁ¸ÀézÀ¢AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. «±ÉõÀªÉAzÀgÉ JQì©mï Dgï-2 jAzÀ Dgï-8 gÀªÀgÉV£À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è «¯ÉÃeï CPËAmÉAmï ¹Ã®Ä ªÀµÁðªÁgÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÉ Dgï-9 gÀ°è F ¥ÀzÀÝw ±ÀÄgÀĪÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁt§ºÀÄ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

Page 63 of 69

3 ¤µÁ£É Dgï-3 ¥ÀºÀtÂ

1974-75 jAzÀ 1975-76 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ JA§ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ 1976-77 £Éà ¸Á°¤AzÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà JAzÀÄ §zÀ¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ, EzÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀiÁ°è£À §°µÀÖgÀ PÉʪÁqÀ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ±ÀÈvÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

4 EvÀgÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ MmÁÖgÉ

EvÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÀgÀ¸À¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ wªÀÄäAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

1968-69 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1969-70 gÀ®è£À ¥ÀºÀt G¯ÉèÃRUÀ½UÉ ªÉÆzÀ°¤AzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ C£À¨sÀªÀzÀ zÁR¯É JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ°è ®¨sÀå«®è, PÁgÀt CªÀgÀÄ ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°è JAzÀÆ EgÀ°®è.

¤§ðAzÀ«gÀªÁUÀ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀ gÀPÀëuÉAiÀÄÄ PÁ£ÀƤ£À°è EgÀĪÁUÉÎ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ G®èAX¹ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ µÁ«ÄïÁV SÁvÉ §zÀ°¹PÀ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzÀªÀÇ C®èzÉ CªÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀPÀÄÌ ®¨sÀå«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

31. ¥ÀºÀt ºÉÃUÉ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JA§ PÁ£ÀÆ£À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ 2£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄÄmÉõÀ£ï CAVÃPÁgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ«®èzÉ 1971-72 £Éà ¸Á°¤AzÀ wzÀÄݪÀÅzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ §zÀ°¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ eÉÆvÉ µÁ«ÄïÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ ¸ÀéµÀÖªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F §UÉÎ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ K£ÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ K£ÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÀÛªÉ

Page 64 of 69

JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃgÀ®Ä F PɼÀPÀAqÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

Karnataka Land Revenue Act Section 128 (4) : Acquisition of rights to be

reported: 4. No document by virtue of which any person acquires a right in

any land as holder, occupant, owner, mortgage, landlord or tenant or

assignee of the rent or revenue thereunder, shall be registered under the

Indian Registration Act, 1908 unless the person liable to pay the registering

authority such fees as may be prescribed for making the necessary entries in

the record of rights and registers referred to in Section 129; and, on the

registration of such a document, the registering authority shall make a report

of the right to the prescribed officer.

Section 129 (2) Whenever a prescribed officer makes as entry in the Register

of Mutations, he shall at the same time post up a complete copy of the entry

in a conspicuous place in the chavadi and shall give written intimation to all

persons appearing from the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations to be

interested in the mutation, and to any other person whom he has reason to

believe to be interested therein.

Section 129 (6) Entries in the Register of Mutations shall be tested and if

found correct or after correction, as the case may be, shall be certified by

such officer as may be prescribed.

Section 129 (7) The transfer of entries from the Register of Mutations to the

Record of Rights shall be effected in the prescribed manner, provided that

any entry in the Register of Mutations shall not be transferred to the Record

of Rights until such entry has been duly certified.

Justice R Jois, Justice Ramakrishna in Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Sri

Murugharajendra Bruhan Mutt of Chitradurga vs Deputy Commissioner

ILR 1986 KAR 1059, 1986 (1) KarLJ 373 “Chapter XI of the Act,(Karnataka

Land Revenue Act) which regulates the making of the entry in the Record of

Rights. Section 127 of the Act deals with the preparation of record of rights

according to the prescribed procedure. According to Sub-section (3) of

Page 65 of 69

Section 127 of the Act, the record of rights so prepared and completed in

respect of any village is required to be published in the Official Gazette in

such manner as may be prescribed. In other words, this provision relates to

the preparation of record of rights in the first instance under the provisions

of the Act. Section 128 of the Act provides for reporting of the acquisition of

rights in respect of lands covered by the provisions of the Act. Therefore,

whenever any person acquires the right to any landed property for which the

Act applies from its original owner by lease, mortgage, gift, purchase etc., the

said Section provides for reporting of such acquisition of rights and for

receiving it by the authority specified on payment of prescribed fee. Section

129 prescribes the procedure for registration of mutations reported under

Section 128. Sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the Act provides for making an

entry in the register of mutations of every report made to him under the

provisions of Section 128 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 129 of the Act

provides for publication of a copy of the entry so made as also for giving

written intimation to all persons interested, as disclosed in the revenue

records. If there were to be any objections,, Sub-section (3) requires the

prescribed officer to enter the particulars of the objection in the register of

disputed cases. Sub-section (4) of Section 129 of the Act empowers the

prescribed authority to decide the disputes following the procedure as

prescribed under Sub section (5). Subsection (6) of Section 129 of the Act

provides for making an entry and certifying the entry relating to mutations in

accordance with the order made after such inquiry. Sub-section (7) of Section

129 provides for transfer of certified entries made in the register of

mutations to the record of rights. Section 135 of the Act bars the jurisdiction

of the Civil Courts in respect of an order made under any of the provisions of

the Chapter against the Government. The proviso under the said provision,

however, provides that a person aggrieved by any entry made in any record

or register may institute a suit against any person denying or interested in

denying his title to such right and also provides that the entries in the record

of right shall be amended in accordance with any declaration granted by the

Civil Court.”

Justice H.V.G. Ramesh, in Mahadevappa And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka

ILR 2008 KAR 1750 It is high time to intimate the Revenue Department and

the concerned Department to meticulously follow the procedure as provided

under Section 128 & 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also it

Page 66 of 69

should be made mandatory as a matter of responsibility on the part of the

Government to save the public from the precarious situation and also there

shall be timely action by the revenue authorities without there being any

delay on their part in making entries in the mutation register and other

registers in the revenue office and in the Corporation/Municipality in city

limits to avoid future complications. ……. Government Pleader to

communicate this order to the Government and the Government in turn shall

direct Secretary to Revenue Department to circulate this order in the

department to follow the procedure as provided under Section 128 & 129 of

the Land Revenue Act for due compliance and taking follow up action. For

such non-compliance by the concerned Revenue Authorities, the Department

shall prescribe some norms to initiate action.

Bhimappa Channappa Kapali ... vs Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda ILR

2002 KAR 3055, 2003 (2) KarLJ 148 Bench Justice N Jain, Justice N Kumar,

“The entry in the RTC is made during the pendency of the legal proceedings

initiated by Shivawwa for cancellation of the gift deed and more so it is on

the basis of a collusive vardhi, as such the said entry would not give rise to

any presumption. That apart she submitted that before an entry is made in

the RTC in the name of the deceased appellant, the procedure prescribed in

law under Sections 128 and 129 of the Land Revenue Act has not been

followed, as such no presumption would arise under Section 133 of the said

Act…… Any person who does not lawfully enter on the land of another and

cultivate the same cannot claim the status of a deemed tenant under Section

4 of the Act. Though, in the case of Dahya Lala, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held it is not the condition that the applicant must cultivate land with

the consent or under the authority derived directly from the owner, to

import such a condition is to rewrite the section, and destroy its practical

utility, a person who derives his right to cultivate land from the owners

would normally be a contractual tenant and he will obviously not be a

"deemed tenant". Persons such as licensees from the owner may certainly be

regarded as falling within the class of persons lawfully cultivating the land

belonging to others, but it cannot be assumed therefrom that they are the

only persons who are covered by the section. A tenant lawfully inducted by a

mortgagee shall on redemption of the mortgage be deemed to be a tenant

under the mortgagor…."Lawfully cultivating" must have some foundation in a

legal right to cultivate the property. Lawful cultivation cannot Be established

Page 67 of 69

without concomitant existence of a lawful relationship. Lawful cultivation

must have origin in a legal right to cultivate the property. In the absence of

any such right to cultivate, it cannot be said that merely because a person is

cultivating the land he is held to be in lawful cultivation. A person who

cultivates the land against the wishes of the owner cannot be said to be in

lawful cultivation. Merely because no action is taken against him and he has

continued to cultivate for a considerable period of time would not make his

cultivation lawful. The essence of lawful cultivation is that one should enter

possession of the land under some colour of right and cultivate the land as a

matter of right, otherwise it cannot be said that he is in lawful cultivation of

the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any legal right a person

who is cultivating the land cannot claim a status of deemed tenant under

Section 4 of the Act.

In Jayamma v. Maria Bai Dead by proposed L.Rs. and Another [(2004) 7 SCC

459], this Court has held that when an assignment or transfer is made in

contravention of statutory provisions, the consequence whereof would be

that the same is invalid and thus opposed to public policy………….

E°è E£ÁªÀÄÄzÁgÀgÀÄ (JgÀqÀ£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ) ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½zÁgÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄzÀÄÝ CzÉà ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß CAzÀgÉ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/UÉÃt gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è CzÀð ¨ÁUÀ ¥sÀ¸À®£ÀÄß J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¸ÀéµÀ×£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÁvÀäPÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ vÁªÀÅ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 13 gÀ°è£À d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå£À ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄìzÁgÀgÁzÀ aPÀÌwªÀÄäPÀÌ GgÀÄ¥sóï ¥ÀÄlÖªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ 2 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉAiÀÄ£ÀÆß, gÀAUÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ 1 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ AiÀÄ£ÀÆß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

Page 68 of 69

¢£ÁAPÀ:¸ÀܼÀ; vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ (ªÁ¢ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3(J),(©),(¹) ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ)

«.¸ÀÆ:- F ªÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ F ªÉÄÃ¯É G¯ÉèÃT¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÉÊmÉõÀ£ï UÀ¼À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 266 ¥ÀÄlUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ F °TvÀ ªÁzÀzÀ ¥Àæw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÊmÉõÀ£ï ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ

Page 69 of 69