Karnataka High Court
Shri Yallappa Balappa Naik vs The Asst Commissioner on 22 November, 2010
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
bad IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2274 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 ° ; PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.SABHAHIT --_ AND | THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO W.A. e-sr60/aees (LR) BETWEEN: . te SHRI YALLAPPA BAL APPA NAIK. | AGE:70 YEARS, OCC AGRI: ; -- R/O MHALENATT, TG BE LGAUM . ... APPELLANT (By Sri. JAGAD: SH PATIL: ADVOC ATE) AND: I. THE ASST COMMISSIONER BELGAUM SUB DIVISION, BELGAUM ho SHRI ASHOK 8/0. KALLAPPA PATIL AGE MAJOR, OCC SERVICE, a RIG ATHIWAD TALUK, DIST: BELGAUM. _ SHR i SAMBA oi HNATTOBA CHAVAN ~ AGE M: AGOR,. ; OCE CEMENT: FACTORY BUSINESS R} O, ATHIWAD TALUK, DIST: BELGAUM. . RESPONDENTS
a4 HIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. ACT, PRAYING TO:
REMAIN A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/3/08 PASSED .BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.30424/03 AND FURTHER ALLOW THE SAID, Ww: MP: 7 B. CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BEL EGAU VIDE REMAND THE MATTER FOR FRESH L DISPOSAL, | AND . ALSO CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE» HON'BLE KARNATAKA. APPELLATE "TRIBUNAL BEARING APPEAL NO. 804/2002 DATED 8/12/2002 BE QUASHED | C. DIRECT RESPONDE E NTS. EC GRANT: OCCUPANCY RIGHT OF THE LAND AS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.7A BE GRANTED. wo THIS APPEAL COMING: ON FOR' "BRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, V.G. SABHAHI?, Jy DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sopeMEN?
This appeal 1 is file ed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner in WP No.3042 4/2008. (R). _Agerieved by the order dated 18.03, 2006, passed: hy the learned Single Judge of this Court who has dec lined to interfere with the order dated 18.12.2002 passed by the. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal confirming the order passed by the competent authority under Section 77A of oe 'the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Ac t}. The appeln herein filed Form No.7-A seeking for grant of land in "respec t of Survey No.48 to an extent of 8 acres out of 26 acres soy WN 13 guntas of Mhalenatti \ Village of Belgaum District. The same was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner who rejecte Ld 'the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that hig nalne was not entered in the record of rights \ of Mhatenattt. Village :
and land was not vested and he was not entitled to grant of land under Section 77-A of the Act.
2, Being aggrieved by the" sane an appeal was filed before the Karnataka Appel ate. Tribuna in wwhich also the appellant was unsuceess. : estes Writ Petition No.30424 /200016R). was : filed contending that the writ petitioner was the ienant of the land end he could not file Form No.7-A in: 1 time and. there foe the competent authority and the appellate authori ity G igh t ae) have allowed the application. 3e Learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the contentions. of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and 'scrutinizing the material on record, held that during the relevant period i.e., 1973-74 and 1998-99, the name . of Ashok. Kallappa Patil was found in the revenue records and the name of the appellant is not shown even on 01.03.1974 aNNNRCEANetEtmaME and therefore, the land is not vested. Therefore, the question of conferring land under Section 77-A of the Act does. not-arise and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. There is.a deiay of 243 days in filing the appeal.
9. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the appellant was apr tected tenant, "He could not file Form No.7 on 01.08.1974. 'Therefore, "Form No.7-A was filed after insertion of Section' TIN of. the land Reforms Act and the Tribunal has wrongly confirmed the order passed by the "competent "authority and the learned Single Judge ought to a have aliowed the writ petition and the delay in filing the appea "has been explairied by showing sufficient cause.
a Pf Oo LULA As ee?
Se @ a
7. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appella int, and scrutinized the material on record.
8. The material on record wouid clearly Show tha though the appellant claims that he is entitled to-grant 0 'land. in respect of Survey No.48 to an. extent of 8 Acres< out of £26 acres 13 guntas in respect of. Mh aleria itt Villiage," Belgaum District and has filed Porta Noten The "material on record would clearly show that 'his name was never entered in the record of rights at the relevant tame se ie, from 1973-74 and 1998-99, when- the' applica ion. was. '= filed and the finding was also given that 'the land has not vested and therefore, grant cannot be mede. It'is well Suttled that for grant of land under Section:7 77-A of | the Act, the applicant should show that he was . a tenalit 6: oa on: 93. 1974 and the land was vested. There is concurrent findings against the appellant by the competent authority and the appellate tribunal and the learned Single "uidge has accepted the said concurrent findings and we do not 'find amy error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to take a different view in the matter and accordingly, we hold that the appeal is devoid of merits:..~ ea 3 £ ;
9. There is a delay of 243 days in filing the appeal, 'The application filed by the appellant) applicant. averment made in the affidavit explaining ti he delay ¢ of 248 days in filing the appeal, is that he was sulteting from 'il iis Health due to old age and hence, he could rot re omet to meet his counsel. In the mean time, the apoeal is belated an immediately after he could engave his "éouingel, 'the. appeal is filed. Therefore, even if the avermenis mage. in the affidavit is accepted, same would not constitute 'any sufficient cause for condonation of delay and' "we have already held that the appeal is devoid of merits... Kecordisigly, the appeal is dismissed on merits and .also'on iimitatiois.
: "The ty