Dalphy D'Souza, Adult vs Philip D'Souza on 22 June, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dalphy D'Souza, Adult vs Philip D'Souza on 22 June, 2010

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

E

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE p,

DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF' « 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 

WRIT PETITION N0___._5§3396"OF 2001(KI,I§Q   .

BETWEEN:

Dalphy D'S0uza, Aduitj.  _     '
S/0 Paustin D's0uz;1, T  'D
Gocadanmgeru HoI;s€~:, 
MzIE1u1'Villz1_5§é,'   1 
Gurupurulj2'Ii2ét.hIi§:1e't_ P;  
Mangalore   ._  I 
RepreseI'Ite.d by E]i'$§;::.:Pi A; HOEdcI*,"'-~»-- 
Gracy?..V gas, {G by'  Souza,
Adult, R{:VsI'dMia1g ::_t«Ihe.21Vii)'a.§/ E5« 
Address. % . 7 " 2 

   by his LRs.,

 L' Va): "}VIr's-v..Cii':iCy1Vcigzls,
 ._ "'"._'W/'(I .13_'0_1p'h;y"'D'S0uza,
'  Rc)n1:mC:Ii;ho1ic,
 ztiabut 48 yeaI's.'

   Benedict D'Sou7.a,
   *  D/0 Doiphy D'S0uzaI,

Roman Catholic,
Aged about 24 years.

3/



C) Satya Shzmthi D'S0uza,
D/0 Dolphy D'S0uza,
Roman Catholic,

Aged about 21 years.

Residing at Guddam()ga11'L1
Mallur Villzige,
Mangalore Taluk,

[).K. A  % vl¢.?E.'I'ITIl(}_N'ERSlv ll

(By Sri.O.Shivaram Bhat,  _
AND: l

l. Philip D'Sc>L1z;-1,    '  
S/0 P£iUSlll'1VD.:S'OLlZLi:, Adult.  ' 
2. Ananstliizll    
  

Since lldiecctziscd   " _l
R2(a) Lulély. S()xL:z'z1l,l '  S v

i ' -DA/0 1aI_e-Ahasthal D'S0uza.
"  _ *1)/_0l.3,V'z£t«%;.}'.1.2z1stha1l D'S0u2,a.

l'  C€léEll--:iHl::D'SOLlZz1,
 DA/0 "late Anasthal D'S0uza.

 ll   adults.

 lliobert D'S0uza,

S/0 Paustin D'S0u'z..a, Major.

All are residing at Mallur Village,

All"



Gurupuruiiabethubetu Post,
Mangalore Taluk. DK.

4.

n 'T *~B'21ngalo1'e--() '1 .

. Gowri, "

Jami P0o_jari,

S/0 Gangu Poojari,

Kona House, Ma1EL11~ViE1z2ge,

Major, Gurupuruliabethubetu P<)s{,mV b
Mangaiore Taluk, D.K. " 

Vidya Hegde-,

D/0 K.S.Hegde,

Major, Abbetemane,

Abbettubhavan,  .

Marmajalu Village,'  _   
Maiigalore Taiuk, D.K.$   

The EX La_nd»T1'ibun§23l. _.  - 
Mangaloué._Tai}Lik., .  
Mangz1l¥.)re--_£}1,"D;3K.   

By i_ts_VSe'c.:;;é"{;1i*1;{:,_ _ , V

D/0 G:ing{1p00Vj;1_1'<Vi;._v S ' 
A&"ulAt, Kong "H(>t1se,'MaI1u1' Village,

=  (1Guyupuxjtlliabéthubetu Post,
A  Matiggaloi/e._Ta1uk, D.K.

." f;V"Vhé"S'i;'_-atg: ($:f'I'"{2tr:1ataka,
__By its. S"eg:x'eta1'y,

D¢pa;::ne:1: of Revenue,
Vidhzina Soudha,
..RESPONDENTS

AA{B5/'ASri.Vishwaji£h Shetty, Adv. for R1 & R4,

--7Sri.S.Vishwa_§ith Shetty, Adv. f01'R2(a) to R202), Sri.Om KUITIRF, AGA for R6 & R8) W This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 anti"-2.27 of the Constitution of India challenging the order-_ dated 3l.i2.l98l made by the Land Tribunal, MatngaIoteVl:'i::i*;.Ref. l\los.2905, 2906, 2907, 2908/79--80.

This Writ Petition coming on for prel_imin--a:riy» h"eari_r1g__iri' 'B' Group this day, the Court madejthe t"ollt_)wi_i1g: _ «. okpskpe Petitioners are challenging. order' o__fthe.=Land Tribunal dated 28.8.8}. in gi'aht'i-11g favour of respondent No.4' in respect of jV2,tl99A and 2/3A of Malu:flvillagei5t_o tlilelextetit of 4$Wc.er1ts, l2 cents and 65 cents respective1'y.pp It is seei1_.._£hat the 4"' respondent being the son of ' .»Ganguv.,Poojai't3-.after the death of Gangu Poojarti has filed an app1icatioi'ili._foi' grant of occupancy rights in respect of several items' .of property. The wife of the landlord who was present 'before the Land Tribunal has admitted that only to the extent of _.::65 cents there was a tenancy rights and for the remaining land W they are not the tenants and this fact has also been admitted by the third landlord. The Land Tribunal has rejected the claim of the 4"' respondent in respect of two items of lan.ds»i_'on"'the«~ ground that they are Government lands and fOI',ﬁ{.h€V Are'r'naii1in'g lands, based on the spot inspectitbnil report' andiiialso 'survey report, it has taken a decision to grant .oe'et_rpancy_~rights. A'

3. Heard.

no detailed £}lTll(l7llsi'll':'-~.lLSl' passed by the Land Tribunal by as signi ngl reasons, as req u ires interference. !t_rs.__seen that based on the survey report as well as on ._the__ spot."i'n,s_pe'g:ti'on report the order: has n been passed, which tobe legal and valid. Even it is seen that the petitioner shown as landlord in the order passed by the Land So he would be treated as a mulgeni right holder. When the opportunity was given to the petitioner and he was W 6 also very much a party to the proceedings, the very order passed by the Land Tribunal cannot be found fault with.

6. In so far as the order passed in LRT 80 is concerned, the Land Tribunal after recordiiigi:t'hei"statei1ient= , of the mother of the petitioner and'».._oth_je'rr ..i§espo_ndentsi"ah<1 'ago on verification of the records,' hiaying fio-and.thattl"ie"lan.<is were» ' bein I 'ointl cultivatedsince the tirn_e"'0f etiti'on_er's'l father and 2:} 3' . . .. . _ P also based on the suriéeyf're'poi*t:.v thatv.i_tl1e" lands were being cultivated join-tly',~~_ has or~.r;ier confirming the occupancy.riights.j_ointly._ih-fauotir of the petitioner, his brothers and rnother. ~Tho-ttgltitiieipetitioner has set up a claim. in respect of allthe properties that the occupancy rights should have been gL'i£lli'.~E(3;"_l._Vlii..,_l]lS 1ia'iiie-----altine stating that he succeeded to the estate ~ hrs,fz1thera!1_tl that there was no such partition in the family, ._bti_t .th'e« iilstateinfient of the mother of the petitioner shows that t'l1_ere W3..Sii2lil'.1':()1"E1l arrangeinent/partition, on the basis of which, the 'Tribunal has passed the impugned order, which M Bkp appears to be proper and iegai and does not cail for any interference.

7. Acc:0rdingI.y. petition is dismissed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court