2007 (9) TMI 655 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Land Tribunal's Order
2. Allegations of Fraud
3. Delay in Filing the Review Petition
4. Applicability of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act

Summary:

1. Validity of the Land Tribunal's Order:
The Land Tribunal, Belthangady, determined that the declarants held 368.16 acres in excess of the ceiling limit after deducting tenanted and exempted lands. The Tribunal's order was challenged in W.P.No.40425/1982 and W.P.No.10920/1983. The latter was dismissed by the High Court on 07-11-1990, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

2. Allegations of Fraud:
The petitioner contended that the Tahsildar acted fraudulently by not referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner u/s 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and by relying on certificates from the Cardamom Board and Rubber Board. It was argued that the declarants practiced fraud by falsely claiming to have surrendered excess lands. However, the Court found no evidence of fraud by the Tahsildar or the declarants, stating that the Tahsildar's report was supported by spot inspections and that the declarants had not suppressed any facts.

3. Delay in Filing the Review Petition:
The review petition was filed on 15.10.2004, nearly 14 years after the original order. The Court noted the significant delay and lack of explanation for it. The State had not filed an appeal against the order in W.P.No.10920/1983, and the Advocate General had advised against it due to the lapse of time, which the Court found reasonable.

4. Applicability of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act:
The Court clarified that u/s 104 of the Act, the provisions of Sections 79-A, 79-B, and 80 do not apply to plantation lands. The declarants were justified in filing the declaration u/s 66(4) of the Act. The Court reiterated that the definition of "land" u/s 2(18) includes forest and plantation lands, and it is not mandatory for holders of plantation lands to file applications u/s 79-B.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the review petition on grounds of delay, laches, and lack of merit. It granted liberty to the State or Tribunal to ensure the surrender of 368.16 acres in accordance with the law.