Gopala Krishna vs The Land Tribunal Bantwal Taluk on 3 April, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Gopala Krishna vs The Land Tribunal Bantwal Taluk on 3 April, 2012

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

3

3. Petitioner, relying on the decision of thepppziipé-¥:fCo11rt

reported in ILR 1999 KAR 863 in the casehiiofv js4n§;?ap.ii4il 

Kalyanappa Bangi Vs. Land Tribtvzifztzlgl' 'c.on.tended: thgat  per

Section 21 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act-T'-ihierei

be any assignment of land    such, the
impugned order of the   the property
of his father Channappa..Pt0:o_jar$y'/_apSi.,ga  in favour of
the 2'"  relevant point of
time  has to be protected. The
assignment'  "way of Will in favour of 2nd

responderitis in viola'tion.._iof Section 21 of the Karnataka Land

       

T'   4. Petr-_.--Contra, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent has

submitted that the order of the Land Tribunal is of the year 'l9.8_C. Petitioner has attained the age of majority in the year = ...--i983. The mother of the petitioner has conceded to the fact of assignment much less, they were also residing at a distance of 20 kms. and tha, 2"d respondent is not a stranger. He was also W tenancy right under a Will in favour of 2'" respondent-barred under Section 21 of Karnataka Land Reforms Tribunal has not considered thisliiaspcct'-«ofiainaiter and it immediately after the date of knowledge of order, writ petition was filed withotutfany del.ay'a'ndi:':Elaches and therefore, requests to' isafeguardi. riglzt and interest of the petitioner

3. cvguirisell'-Afcrurespondents submitted that the petitioner, has necessary parties to the writ petition and the writ petition is perfectly justiﬁed. if " _ regard to the fact that petitioner was a minor at .thelreleVa'neti.Vtirne and has filed the writ petition and asserted his right "soon after he came to know about the impugned order, there' cannot be any delay in ﬁling the writ petition. Since V. ._..petitioner is questioning the legality and validity of the Will executed in favour of 2nd respondent which is barred under Section 21 of the Act, acting on the said Will prima facie the RV Tribunal ought not to have conferred'ocicupancjz-rights on the respondent. However, this is iiaeiriatter by the Land Tribunal. That by the Land Tribunal against a his legal representatjxspiﬁé--é;ﬂ#¢c.ord'f 1: 2 writ petition has to be "order dated 3-4-2012 is modiﬁed.

This: writ petitioniii is 'allowed. The impugned order of Land A quashed. The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal ~_for_i're'sh_"_vd_isposial keeping in View Section 21 of the Act, after atiiordingiiopportunity to the petitioners and L.Rs of deceased 2 ~ applicant. All contentions are kept open. Send back the records.

Sd/-

IUDGE MP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court