Karnataka High Court
Muniyappa vs Smt Chikkathayamma on 21 November, 2011
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
SES SEES 1 at mie Se IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2197 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. . BEPORE THE HOR'BLE ME. JUSTICE ATTY Fal UN sa WRIT PRITTION NO, 404/010 Li MUNIYAPP S/O LATE MUN AGED ABOUT 54 4 YEARS a R/A GUNDANAHALLI VILLAGE 8, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE TAL Bo . PETITIONER od 9} } NAGAPPA : - AGED ABORT 71 YEARS > RUA GUNDANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, AHEKAL TALUE ~BANGALC CE, MAGPE GAPE OP RARNATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE : ASSISTANT LEGAL CELL, PREVENTION OF UNAUTHORISED SOs no CONSTRUCTIONS, BANGALORE AND ps . COMPETENT OFFICER TO DECIDE FORM No. Fo 4 8 0 ANAL PALUE, ANEKAL tf SPER £2 Bok a : A, KRISHNAMMA ° mo W/O MOURISWANY vex * : SL EE SE BE BGS I EIN I Po ppen No, 1S% /2006 dated 4, 112 . petitioner aryl the lara ER MEME NCEN SEE. EMMIS OSG PINT Math SD WE BARNA LARS MiGh COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COHIRT "LL HOSUR TALUE, MPLURI DISTRICT TAMILNADRI 4, NANJAMMA W/O NAGAPPA _ AGE D ABOUT 56 YEARE _ g. BUILDING, DR. AN MBEDE ART VEEDHI BANGALORE-S¢ : By Sri KE ANRA, J Rij ae HASHIDE: &.KAN. et ot, HOSP POR RQ & & OR Re & 4) & with a prayer t to > quash a Appellate Triburwal in This "Writ Petition j is filet uxder Art 227 of the Cenethtution of indi the order paseed by the K ; This. potition ¢ cork en for prel 8 group this, day, 'the Court madd @GRDER _. The blood relationship inter-se between the tenant lord-reaponderdt ms not dieputed in #8 mmuch as the petitioner i the brother of respondent No.l, [his mot an dispute that the gromerty in question te AOR a Ws TAKA HIGH ¢ REE AAO 8, % mea Saat Hat BRB RP PAGO) POE A A ' Cpt j ar extent of 1 acre 20 guntes was gifted in favour of first resporuient by her feather. The case of the petitiener im thet the husber of frat servant and was in a trarsferable job. Hence, he wae ; ae not in a position to cultivate the jand in queeti tion: Hence, the lend was leased in favour of che petitiencr's younger brother. incident it is: te. bes ndticed, that as of now, the petitioner'. bother i is 54 yeare old and fret reaporment sister 2 7 i years, 7 old. which would Meeariy nagar th a OTL the. da daie when the Is ifesed iL favour of tbe. petitioner, ; he was | years old: © Lore Reforms Act wae smerdled conterting. ont rain Murifioenee on the sersons who were cultivating 'the lax id a8 4 tervant ag om 1.G.1074. Hence, they were: permitted t to fle an application in Form No.7 LS spondent wee e Gevertnent. Piloart Ai ee $ iy Ey ncilentally, it is to be noticed thet by identical fie, the father cf rescendents | ard 2 had Gir RABI, AAS, ei in s favour of other two aistere that is respondents 2 and. 4. Itis also to be noticed that identical applications A wETS made by the petitioner in Form Ne. Toh for grass bof occupancy rights. The seul ap slications Were - 'however not pressed in as much as the. petitions olaivas that Pe purchased: the oroperty ie m reap pondants 3 sad 4. The oresert proceedings are dénfined. only to the ol ageinat respormient Mo.d. soplication.. The Bnet eabeiadent queations the said i belere tee Tree order by. wey sf ar | neiden ental, itis io be neteed that there wes delay of 11 monthe in Kling the appeal, which was accomparied by Lar. SAIN SS PCAN PEELE LS § LP BU RR PSE) LU Le BOP Ok PS EM oh Geko _ Nevertheless, the Tribunal acospted the application and SPARSE RES fd t Miah GOURY Pifksh? (aeU 8D LP BUR ALIA PPA RGR Ad BV ARUSLA LAA PEGI LARD 2 RUA Be Bax Sear ten RAL EAE 5 _Aigor wetion it found thet sufficient cause wes shocrn ov . the firat ree pervient in Bling the belated appeal. I am of PERS EY SPP PALE AAS IMSS 2 8 ly, in ingredienta of Section 77-A are fortmocming. by the said order, the petitioner ie before this Court. Mir Srinari, Courmel ay pearing for. thse bs petitioner vehemently aubmite Shae the eqcord ¢ of sight ee) would clearly dmclose t petitioner or eal cultivating the larx ee @ tenert. Fe farther oubmatts thet the inordinate delay of 11 months wae mnt properk i and the saint Was seriously objected tc tit howewr, delay hae been corvionead: -- 5. Mr. Rempanne, learned) Co ounsel appearing fb feet respondent 'eLoeyporte _ the order pessed. by the Pigg yy iar : Bab BB duds et -- &, in 8, far as the comlonetion of delay is coset ned, We my mund, the Tribunal has exercized it digcretion. in condoning the deley. The Tribunal hee ecriictl 'the cause showri mi as much ae im ite € = ites on ead eaeeny BE & pyargyey im wba, bl ae, sestied seh - . & ah ee ee the view that once the discretion has been exerciséa by 4 PE oe Ene a 4h os -- grghe eo, BS 4 the Tribunel, the question of interfering with the eani POPE EY SA EARS PES SPE RAEN, § PERSE EPL PE Bd PHM Athol SARS A AE ISR EEN SA FAIS, £8 (AP SRE EAR, ROP. BIEN ES URS. PISS SI Lt Las B PR POOLS ALR E . applicant; tenant must be in actual cultivetic: i an i diseretion in the circumstances dose fiot erige. Ever atherwise, the explarmtion offere: by the iret, reepermient in fii oroperly explained in as mosch ate eulficiet i Cause = jerec, Uberaly . In so far aa the merits are poncerned, it ie to be an Form notice) that whenever ait applicat Sere ae Bs No. feA, adlfu udication of t eanie ie required. fo 5s considered with re ference a "Section: 7?-&, of the Act. There are tein conditions te 'be: satisfied before an application cous Pe entertsined. One of them is thet as ort 13.1974, the land d must vest with the Government a e € 2 #2 7 ari asoon the date of mm@lamg an appucahon, ine ey aa gee @ land. Inciderstally, it ie algo to be noticed that the _ Bae we ga: ae 7 or & pam bey bf vesting woukl arise under Section 44 of the Act ory uf Poco a s,s a Sosa geen sion ah -- wt cee cum & secusnes - S& bf. tie cease oF: Feeret. THI (cCLrnernie are ' * ss se ' bum, ay beomwes Fea e ", Eo aay es eee ey on O SOOW LO GOOOo IIe. POS OOS: CMAG Hae FUNG GOR GF RARMATARA NIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT =
# NUE WME or ESE Sad ERPS OREN, ES UENCLOH RoE EG FREI BAC NG Ot gh i Pig t me i the gift, he has been cultivating the land as a tenant having r to the age now, which would necessarily:
mean that as on the date when he started cultivating". a the lard, he wae 12 yea oS. For the reasons stated, | am of the vie order passed by the Tribunal, both on the gi delay az well as on meritz cemnot be feulted. Petition slams rejected.
Be Sri Shashidhar &. Karamadi, learned itted te file memo of eppeararice within four weeks Sd/-
mas.