Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

D S A Padmanabhan Alias D S ... vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2011

Author: Ajit J Gunjal

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 1S? DAY OF DECEMBER 261). .
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE-AJIT J GUNA AL

W.P.NO.429 OF 2098 'LR

BETWEEN

1.

D.S.A.PADMANABHAN
ALIAS D.S. ANATHAPADMANABIAH _
ALIAS PADMANABHIAH :

S/O SANJEEVAIAH

AGED 77 YEARS a
RESIDING AT 592, 10TH CROSS ~~
7™ BLOCK, WEST
JAYANAGAR. 7
BANGALORE "560 982.

VENKATESH" om
ALIAS VENKATESHAIAH, oy
S/O KODANDA RAMAIAH .
AND LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
AGED.54 YEARS

N©.731, ASWIN] NILAYAL,

" S°R.S-ROAD,

~.. PEENYA, BANGALORE ~ 560 058

. PETITIONERS

(BY SRLG-B SHASTRY & SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY,

ode

: . . AND :

| ADVS:)
STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT
OF LAW AND PARLIAMENT AFFAIRS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BANGALORE

LAND TRIBUNAL.



ANEKAL TALUK

ANEKAL

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BY ITS CHAIRMAN

PARASHURAMAIAH
2/0 LATE CHINNAIAL

Cao

SARJAPU TR HOBALI
ANEKAL TALUK

4. CHINNASWAMY
MAJOR
S/O LATE CHINNAIAH,
RESIDING AT DOMMAS; ANDRA VILLAGE,
SARJAPUR HOBALI _ :
ANEKAL TALUK

5. SMT.SHANTHAMMA ~
MAJOR | 2
D/O CHINNAPPA
RESIDING AT DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
SARJAPUR-HOBALT
ANEKAL-TALUK~ _
| : ..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHAS! HIDHAR & S KARAMADI, HCGP.,
SRI B.VIJAYASHETTY, ADV., FOR R-3 & R4,
---- SRI NN. SHANKARANA RAYANA BHAT ADV. FOR R5)

THIS WRIT F ETIT ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER
TO STRIKE DOWN THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT

"1974, AMENDEMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION

~ ACT,.1974, LE., KARNATAKA ACT NO.1/74

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'BY GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

COW CIO


ORDER

The petitioner has sought for the following relie efs

(i) Strike down the Kamataka | tad' Karnataka Act No:t/ 1974 +t "as :

petitioners are cone ened.
(ii) Set aside the _ordér -of 7 Land T ribunal Anekal: dated. 275. 1977 in ase eNo, TRF /ATC/2405 /75- 76 pi rode ed at Aninexure- H. (iin And 4 ty otior relief that this Hon'ble | Court deem. fit. in the circumstances of the writ peti tion.

.. 2. Briefiy stated the facts are as under:

. The. petitioner No.1 claims to be the purchaser of : -- the land measuring 2 acres of Sy.No.83 of Anekal Taluk os 'pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 20.12.1956. . The petitioner No.2 purchases another extent of 2 acres ' of land in Sy.No.83 on 20.12.1956. The respondent No.3 files an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy y 4 / 7" 4 a oo oo rights. The said application is filed on 21.5.1976. The Land Tribunal pursuant to the impugned order. has granted occupancy rights on 29.5.1977. The'said order S is sought to be questioned before this court after'a lapse' . of nearly 31 years.
3. Incidentally it is a more: € intelligenth tly drafted writ petition inasmuch as notking i is stated and explained as to considerable delay in. questioning" the impugned order. The petitioner is 2 vestionng 'tie constitutional validity of Act. Le of 1974: r ami of the view that in the first instance the ores. passed by the Land Tribunal, which was passed in "the, year 1977, cannot be faulted ; inasmuch. as there is a considerable delay in filing the
- writ petition. Even on merits the Tribunal has come to a condinsion that the respondents were cultivating the land as tenants.

4, It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that both the ' petitioners have received a compensation of %.85,000/-. A copy of which is produced at Ex.R3 along with the A SUS ESA ER DORR statement of objections. Thus, it is not open for the petitioners to question the order passed by the Land Tribunal.

5. Insofar as constitutional validity is concérned,.1_ am of the view that the matter is*no longer: resintigru inasmuch as this Court has already upheld the'validity of Act 1 of 1974. Having said S09, 'lam of the view that the question of interference does 'pot: arise. Petition stands rejected. : -_ Mr.Shasnidhar S.Karmadi, learned High Court Government Pleader appéaring for respondents 1 & 2 is permitted to file meme of appearance within four weeks. Sd/s JU Of DD