Sri Pathris Rodrigues vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 22 July, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Pathris Rodrigues vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 22 July, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HKGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF JULY zeenfoe

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANBANDTT {3T_YR/\;RE:1VjD"f'VV 

WRIT PETITION N0.» 3514§i'50EO 20094131 ' Z    

BETWEEN:

Sri. Pathris Rodrigues, _
Aged 58 years,   
S/0 Late Syivester-R0~drig§;es,_, 
Sanoor House,  _    
Badabeliur Viiiiagea O'"F'0st,"'ff--   '
Bantwal   V   *  
DakshinjiKan'1ia,da   _  ...PETITIONER

(B y Shri. OPuT1di1V<ai   Advocate)

,2_'_\_i}iD__I;'~ _

  . pf 

'' ~Re'p_r>e'se1Tted-.By its Secretary,
._ "~B'__Depa%;menut'Véf Revenue.
B _ Ms, Bu'if.aing,
"Ban-Vga1'or'e - 560 00'}.

 " 'g'_l"he"Land Tribunal

*  Bantwa} Taiuk,
Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada,
Represented by its Chairman.

5



IN)

3. Padmanabha Poojary,
Major,
S/o Late Ammu Poojary,
Sanoor~Kandadabettu,
Badabellur Village & Post,
Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada.

4. Sri. Nonayya Poojary,
Major, _ V
S/o Late Lakkanna Poojary, 
Sano0r-Kandadabettu,   
Badabellur Village  Post,   
Bantwal Taluk,  "  
Dakshina Kannada.  'M
5. Smt. Fathitma, 
Major,   ' _ _   _ 
W/o Late S_e1<e' "Bi'eabry-,j--., _    _ 
"Late HO1g1S'e'7§.;.. _,   «. 
Bada"g'abell.ur Pest,  
Ba.ntwa'E     '
Dakshina    ...RESPONDENTS

(By Shri-.2   Advocate for Respondent No.4,

~ 2.  Ktimar, Go'vei:.r1I.n.ent Pleader for Respondent No.1 and 2,
2'  Notice to°R'cspondent No.5 is dispensed with)

  Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

 the C'onstitut'ion of India praying to quash the order dated
-ﬂf;-'.._"l.5.O2.l9797~ passed by the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, Dakshina
 i"pKai1i1a.,da in TNC No._l 1.28/75»-76 and TNC No.1 142/75-76 insofar
'-pasﬁthef' grant of occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.l2'7/2
....?me'asuring 0.25 acre and Sy.No.l27/3 measuring 0.28 acres of

Z



3
lands situated at Badagabellur Village of Bantwal Taluk, in favour
of Respondents No.3 and 4 respectively (Annexure--A) and etc.,

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following: -- ' 
ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-and y Counsel for the respondents.

2. The facts brieﬂy statedfor iof,the,se are as follows:--

The petitioner claiming as a itenanpt"~._in possession of land in survey no.1 'of:'B:adaiga.h:e'llu'1' Village, Bantwal Taluk had filed a declarationyin Form iiI1o;'7.:lunder the provisions of the Karnataka .__Lar1_d'i'Refo1'njs Act; «l9.6.lv in the year 1974. Respondents 3 and 4 i*gial'soT have filed declarations for grant of occupancy rightsiin reyspecf of different portions of survey no.l27 in the year lands were surveyed and the petiti_oner's holding was A jrrleasttred and reported to the Tribunal. The Tribunal after ...veriﬁcation of the same, had granted occupancy rights in favour of 8 the petitioner including survey no.l27 measuring 1 acre 81 cents apart from several other items of land totally measuring..il'2_iacvres 75 cents.

However, it is the petitioner's.: gn1°ievancl_e that--lafteit.havi.ngli' granted 1 acre 81 cents in survey noi'l.V2'7--._ out ofythey 1(eryi"s.aine extent, the Tribunal has thought to grant 2.S:"s:errts"i'n 'survey no.127/2 and 28 cents in su.1:vey.'nol.1'2T;'3:l"in favour' of respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively. This ofveriap the extent of 1 acre 81 cents fgrlalnted favour" of"--lthe.....petitioner. It is the petitioner's iutther;fgriel'.r'ancethat'the grant made in the year I 1979 inl'favour.ofi..3' and 4, was without notice to the petitioner and ithVerefore._i's.bad in law and hence is sought to be

- V. chalzleinged in the i';:ir'es_e.nt petition. ' ii 3. The iearned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 has filed ilstalte._r_nen'L objecitions to refute the contentions. The Counsel for

--V the riespo-npdents would submit that the petitioner's complaint that ljrhe "was not heard and that the lands granted in favour of 8 5 respondents 3 and 4 was inspite of the land having been already granted to the petitioner is incorrect. The petitioner, as noted by the Land Tribunal, had entered appearance in the proceedings relating to the grant of occupancy rights in favour of x3 and 4 and had willfully consented to the grantlol'. survey no.l27 in favour of endorsed the proceedings beforethe V i

4. The learned Government'.:ii§ldVocate'aould ialisoiiisupport this contention and 'petitionieir 'after having willfully'iicionceded of respondents 3 and 4 is not in a position to claim Byil"wa_y of'.'rep'ly,i"'tliie learned counsel for the petitioner . ii"wouldlieniphasize thlatmthough respondent-3 has produced a so-- called said to have been made by the Tribunal, there i ii _ is a seriou's' discrepancy in the proceedings of the Tribunal itself ._innn.ot indicating said endorsement and there is mischief played by g respondent no.3 in asserting that the petitioner did participate at the proceedings.

6. Having regard to the record which veriﬁed by the learned Government. ._Advocat'e'ra..a»nd" on submission that the endorsement is there is no substance in the petii'ti:o'ner's c'ase..es.pe;:ia:l--ly;"since the petitioner has approached" court year tovgquestion a grant made in the year the petitioner has been granted SL_1"ffl('jl€lI1t extent of land"ii.ieas_ui"ing 12 acres 15 cents, the petfgtionertrAseekinigiitollcoinpiaihmabout a small extent of land which has been grante{d.to'~the«respondents, respectively, cannot be countenancedlb-ya this court and the petition is hit by delay and vllachies. }'iccoI'ding]y, the same is rejected. Sd/ea JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court