- (1.)In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Notification issued by the Tahsildar, under Rule 5 of the Mysore Land Reforms Rules, 1965. The main contention of the petitioners is that the Tahsildar had contravened the provisions of S.8 read with Rule 5 and that the Notification issued by him was, therefore, illegal.
(2.)The learned Advocate-General, who appears on behalf of the State, concedes that the Tahsildar had adopted a basis of classification which was not warranted by S.8 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Rule 5 framed thereunder. S.8 of the Act prescribes the rent that will be payable by the tenant annually to the landlord and provides for fixation of the same by a Notification in the prescribed manner. Sub-sec.(2) Cl.(a) lays down that the gross produce per acre in any year of any land in each local area specified by the State Government by Notification, shall be the average yield for that year of the principal crops grown on that class and grade of land :'n that local area published under sub-sec. (4). Part A of Schedule I to the Act mentions seven classes of lands. Rule 5 deals with determination of average yield of crops. It states : The Tahsildar shall determine for the taluk the average yield for each of the principal crops for such of the seven classes of land specified in Part A of the Schedule appended to the Act which may exist in his taluk with reference to the classification value of each land, whether such land is 'good land', medium land' or 'inferior land', as specified in Rule 23 of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules, 1966."
(3.)What has happened in this case is that contrary to the seven classes of land mentioned in Part A of the Schedule, the Tahsildar proposed by his preliminary Notification (Ext.A) 9 classes of land as per the classification adopted in 1935 for re-settlement. This Notification was issued on 10-11-1966. After the rereipt of the obiections, he issued the final Notification (Ext.C) in accordance with Rule 5(3) of the Rules on 15-3-1967, mentioning the average vield of principal crops in the lands according to the classification adopted by him, but reclassifying them as 'good land' 'medium land' and 'inferior land'. But, this classification does not conform with Pule 23. Nor is it consistent with the classes as given in Part A of Schedule I to the Act. The Tahsildar has also not taken account of the other principal crops that are grown in the lands in the area. It is necessary to mention the other principal crops also grown in the area.