Karnataka High Court
Sri Hasanabba S/O Sri. Adrama Beary vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2012
1% TIIF HICTIT (01 RI II KW II Ut U I V%.( I ( liT
1 IIDIIT IPI fl I I 2
I RI
rilE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H BILLAPPA
Writ Pctition 'sos 1)))) P 20
BE WEEN
iiHas in ibba
udibout63 c
) ni cIxaini B u
ilinci it Mitla
1, '
1a 'iluk
aPi Kin c (
I
2
3. Sri. P.13. Mohammed Kunhi,
Major, Sb Sri Bapu Monu Beary,
Residing at Thekkar Village.
Maninakloor, Beithangady Taluk,
Dakshlna Kannada. .... Respondents
(By: Srl.Shashidhar S. Kanamadi, FICGP. for Ri and EU
Sri Ananclarama. Adv., for R3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
03.12.2010 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bantwal. D.K In
TNC No. 7308/1974-75 vide Annexure-A and the order dated
28.09.2002 passed by the Land Tribunal. Bantwal D.K. In
INC No. 12286/1974-75 vide Annexure-Al, In so far as
rejection of petitioner claim In respect of Sy.No.203/5
measurIng 75 cents of land vide Annexure-Al.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in '13'
Group, this day. the Court made the following:
ORDER
In these writ petitions under ArtIcles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Tndla. the petitioner has called in question. the orders dated 03.12.2010 and 28.9.2002 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bantwai, in case Nos.TNC.7308/ 1974-75 and TNC. 12286/74-75 vlde Annexures-W and A1'.
. 4 I p
S )
II P.
I'
a ) • I .I • T ç
t
.. •:-. . .•;l .:.' • ) 'T
' % L It '.i;g
J 1 1 K
-
II . , I I kl L_ 'V 'S -) 'fl 11 )1l:tIJI 1.11
1 t ) I ) I
' I 1
aT!
•,v LTY'I P )(1J r.nT')TL!:I.J jiTItki1
1!, I '{ 1; 1 Si
lii J I 1' ii NI
5
4 .t ') ,iau'1--.i; U. )7Gj i'
t
4 tqSap"3j 10 .'ji f'OZ'
flialpIll 1fl %jJii L tTiI'Lt) 1 O 1l.)(1%_).L tIJ 1ULUT 14 tl SLfl
H ii' 1'! tfl -> 4 II j 'WTI' I. IOLJ1l)d )T4j
-- til' iani tp p. 'it' is AIliiI.Icl I
%tit..IJZT I. HI l.Ifl
'ii I fl') I.) Nil) )(l Ji 11.11 c1 )).1 V)l tiJ
-- •1 •. I ZLa!-3. 'IL .)tL(!. ';.I;! ML'S 1
'L' '1
h' .0, .( ( 0\ f() lids II itT tlfl n[u 'rq
t) ill I
ji' 'itil' 1 'i tlit ij aip ".i ;p..tu (hflI31IiIl.u1 41 -1:i 'c:
4
measurIng 75 cents. This Court rernlttcd the matter for fresh consideration on 26.5.1980 In so far as It relates to Sv.No.203/05 of Kadeshwalva Village measuring 73 cents is concerned. Thereafter, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights In favour of the petitioner. It was challenged in W.P.No. 15149/1993. This Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter. the Impugned order at Annexure-'A' has been passed rejecting the claim in respect of Sy.No.203/5 of Kadeshwalya Vifiage measuring 75 cents. It is stated, the petitioner was not aware of the order passed in TNC.No. 12282/74-75 vlde Annexure-A1'. Therefore, these writ petitions.
5. The 3zxt respondent has filed statement of objections contending that the writ petitions are misconceived and they are liable to be dismissed. It Is stated, the petitioner filed form No.7 elainfing occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.205/ 1 of Kadeshwalya Village measurIng 80 cents. The Land Tribunal granted occtipancy rights in respect of 5 items 5 of land including 75 cents in Sy.No.203/5 by order dated 03.06. 1977. It is stated. there was no tlaim iii respect of Sy.No.203/5. The 3c respondent challenged the order in so 11w as It relates to granting of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.203/5 of Kadeshwalya Village measurIng 75 cents. This Court by Its order dated 26.05.1980 remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter. Tribunal granted occupancy rights In favour of the petitioner In respect of Sy.No.203/5 of Kadeshwalya Village. Again the 3nt respondent challenged the order In W.P.No. 15149/1993. ThIs Court by Its order dated 9.10.96 remItted the matter for fresh consideration. There Is no procedural irregularity and the impugned order is In accordance with law. Thereibre. the 3 respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the Impugned orders have been passed without holding ant' enquiry as required under law. Further. 1k 't 1)1111th d ii t the C hut i Ic pi L S ' (' tw tii rtjt ci'U only I 11w a' im il 'ii ii i.t L'i ci I il,i ii.a1 L i.. III ip• daru' I 2". )ti )j)i iç_) 11.1% i t' a. ii ii In L,ii ;ti i'-'--..
S\,)(3ir ihticf lciuji'c i c
'U''BL'iILLI Iii nlU.
7 A' aualns( 1111%. liii' leanl"cl rc.uIr4'-l 10! 'lit' Y
i spo icknt sill) flitted ih i Ui ii ia 1 )It ci
n, Ientlcn vi lx fiuitcinl vu ItCWtl iii IL)' jjjt
iii 'i
'-4 110 Irn in n'%prcl 't S',.\ai ',O 'S 'A I\.stit I.WJIa ifl'aa.
Ii 111' 'C iilt IJ 1 1
ii'. 0!')' 7 •1 "
11111, aii'l lrrrc liar' H.i1,'P.lIc--l --
;'..t'rfr'r TL' • lit t1'.n LI11LLUL tilt:. .. i-- 1 ru' in \ .
4.3 3 I II Vt tL th tti
9 4)( •t.a 1) 1,)j tjj( ' . J.''fl., L '''!.
7 7
4 ( 1 '. C. I p g g
'1 1 4.
I. i '' .1,3 -- ' a •
--
-- '.1• ••
9. I have careflully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The point that arises for my consideration is:
Vhether the impugned orders call for interference?
11. It Is relevant to note, the petitioner claims that his father late Adrama Beary was the tenant In respect of certain lands including Sy.No.203/5 of Kadeshwalya village measuring 75 cents. The petitioner filed form No.7 claimIng occupancy rights In respect of Sy.No.205/ 1 of Kadeshwalya Village measuring 80 cents and other lands. The Tribunal by its order dated 03.06.1977 granted occupancy rights In favour of the petitioner In respect of Sy.Nos.205/ 10, 205/6A, 205/7A. 205/1E & 203/5 measuring 65 cents. 05 cents. 03 The 3rd cents, 04 cents. 2 1 cents and 75 cents respectively. respondent challenged the order in so hr as it relates to Sy.No.203/5 of Kadeshwalya Village measuring 75 cents iii W.P. No.10522/1977. ThIs Court quashed the order in so far a it remit '. It' S .'cti 20.3'. u K iclc '4i aKa 'i. ifla,. and r nutL( I hit ii dIn (ci 11 sI n' ii r I lit t tIn 1 c I ri" nil "t iiiivd 3(1 upuu 'i"his hi lcit J 1 ,:L •. i (I. ii' 1 flpCt I at Sy.\ '.20, ''I K;1esln' .ih .t \ iIku.c 1)3 • 'I cLiP d 02 01.1986 II is hallengeil it 'V P rn i l 19/ 'fl. Ihi& ( CLII CiiUtLCd tht taut. I r Ii 1 t 1 itt. it lilt ia1tci tii' lUijil iiwtl i (Ir' Ii i bet p 'vLI uet r 1'., dat i Iiiii Ui tt'spcrt ('I Sv No.2'U. 1)1 l€tdn1nal.i. \'i1Iaw %liik. ci mc - lit ii bi in ha' I Us. Ti ill ii cit a. Mi 1 tLti ) d ljY tIt)iCIi( hi' t (ltU'UPt iii'-- a1'I l m ti' 'i.tiiii i( jsiiLl ii ; ' 1% ( rr jt C XoLO5' I ot K.amdeslaIv.t Viilae .jiiti i' '•,q' mat..
' it crui a in r j t ; 1 c , - ( 't I ) . r I t • •' • r' •fl 1i' i ;i,:t a! h.v-- .l--- 4 ' r - •' 1 ;' . ; C1b4 g •i j 'c_ F'--• 5' • ..: . • . t a ,.; I h •• I I '1 .it • I •t I I Ii r Se, • • • ••••I I • 1' aDam • passuisyp ase suol3!3ad ;iaa aq iCiupsoao g passpusjp aq o; aqejj axe £aq pu suo;ad 3!.Li\ asaq; uj zam ou s aaauj, aouasapa3uT soj iou op s.xapio pauflndw! aq aioja.zaqj TEunqpj. aip £q passud zapao aqi u £Mjeitanr 10 sosn Sue pug iou 6