(1.) :- Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that, according to the petitioner a total holding of 250 acres and 17 guntas situated in Eshapur and Arakanal villages in Harappanahalli Taluk in the district of Bellary belonged to the petitioner's deceased father that is on the coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Smt. Kalamma R., filed a declaration under S. 66 of the Act and thereafter by order dated 20-10-1981 Annexure-A to the writ petition the Tribunal respondent No. 2 declared and held that declarant and his family was possessed of 29 acres 42 guntas of excess land. In pursuance of order dated 20-10-1981, the Tahsildar on 2-8-1982 passed an order issued a notice calling upon the tenure-holder to surrender the land to an extent of 29 acres 42 guntas out of certain plots specified therein. The petitioner's case is that on a writ petition, i.e., W.P. No. 29249/82 being filed therefrom, i.e., order dated 2-8-1982, this Court vide in order dated 11-7-1991 allowed the aforesaid writ petition. That on 30-4-1994 and 2-11-1994 petitioners have been called upon to surrender 29 acres 42 guntas of land as excess land within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. The notice dated 30-4-1994 has been annexured as Annexure-J to writ petition. The petition has alleged that the petitioners have moved an application for review or reconsideration but according to the petitioner the second respondent indicated that they would not review order dated 21-10-1981 so the petitioner's have come up again before this Court by this petition of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India again. The petitioners has sought the quashing of order dated 20-10-1981 and notice dated 30-4-1991 and has prayed for dropping further proceedings under order dated 21-10-1981 and notice dated 30-4-1994 issued under S. 67(s) of the Act.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that, there are four major persons and three minors on the relevant date in the family of the declarant and they are entitled to hold 216 acres and for the minor daughters and two others are entitled to two units each. That an area of 24 acres 24 cents had been alienated prior to 1-3-1974 under sale deed dated 11-2-1972 which should have been included and they are entitled to exemption but it has not been allowed. Therefore, the order is illegal.