U C S BHAT Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
STATE OF MYSORE
Click here to view full judgement.
(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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.