Karnataka High Court
B Sanjeeva Shetty vs The Land Tribunal Udupi on 9 July, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2012 (4) AIR KAR R 70, (2012) 3 KCCR 2347
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G Ramesh
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 9th day of July, 2012
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH
Writ Petition 7824 / 2007 (LR)
Between:
B Sanjeeva Shetty, 64 yrs
S/o late Jalaja Shedthi
Moodumane, 76-Badagabettu Village
Udupi Taluk & District Petitioner
(By Sri S K Acharya, Adv.)
And:
1 Land Tribunal, Udupi
By its Chairman
2 State of Karnataka - by its Secretary
Revenue Department
M S Building
Bangalore 1
3 Rajeevi Shedthi, 56 yrs
W/o late Gopal Shetty
4 Santhosh Kumar Shetty, 36 yrs
S/o late Gopal Shetty
2
Both are r/o 76 - Badagabettu Village
Udupi Taluk & District Respondents
(By Sri Shashidhar S Karmadi, GP for R1-2;
Sri G Balakrishna Shastry, Adv. For R3-4)
Writ Petition is filed under Art.226/227 of the Constitution praying
to quash the order dated 21.4.2006 - annexure A by the Land Tribunal,
Udupi.
The Petition coming on for hearing this day, Court made the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for quashing the order of the Land Tribunal, Udupi dated 21.4.2006 - annexure A. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner was rejected.
It transpires, one Gopal Shetty the brother of Sindhu Shedthi filed Form 7 in respect of the properties in Sy.Nos.50/2B measuring 47 cents; 50/10B measuring 08 cents; 50/11B measuring 17 cents; 50/11 C measruing 14 cents; 50/13B measuring 56 cents and 50/8 measuring 1.32 acres situate of 76 Badagabettu Village which were granted by order dated 6.9.1979. The same has been challenged by the sister of Sindhu Shedthi after the 3 death of Sindhu Shedthi. This Court, in WP 26987/1996, remanded the matter. After remand, during pendency of the matter, Girija Shedthi and Sarojini Shedthi sisters of Sindhu Shedthi who had filed the writ petition, have withdrawn their claim. However, the mother of the petitioner who is none other than the sister of Sindhu Shedthi by name Jalaja Shedhi did not chose to prefer any writ petition or assail the order of the Land Tribunal. Further, the petitioner claiming to be the son of Jalaja Shedthi and that he is also the legal heir of Sindhu Shedthi tried to come on record and sought for remanding the matter and to quash the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of Gopal Shetty.
It is the submission of the petitioner's counsel, without assigning any reasons, the grant of occupancy rights on 6.9.1979 has been confirmed once again. According to the petitioner's counsel, petitioner is one of the person to succeed to the estate of Sindhu Shedthi.
According to the respondent's counsel, during the life time of Sindhu 4 Shedthi, she has conceded that the land in question is tenanted. It is also submitted, during her life time, though the order is passed in the year 1981, she did not challenge but subsequently, two of her sisters though challenged and succeeded in getting the matter remanded subsequently, both of them have not evinced any interest to contest the matter and have withdrawn the claim. Further, the mother of the petitioner Jalaja Shedthi although the sister of Sindhu Shedthi, being one of the legal heir, she also did not evince interest and also not challenged the earlier order. Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner does not derive any right or interest to come on record as legal heir and also the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be called in question.
It appears, Sindhu Shedthi has tenanted her properties to Gopal Shetty who is none other than her own brother and he stands in the position of a Class I heir. It is pertinent to note that petitioner is the son of Jalaja Shedthi, one of the sisters of Sindhu Shedthi. Neither Sarojini Shedthi challenged the impugned order during her life time nor Jalaja Shedthi during her life time and they are Class I heirs. In between the two, even by 5 relation this respondent stands on a better footing than the petitioner and right enures to him as a Class I heir. In that view of the matter, the application filed for impleading if it is not allowed, do not need be made much of. More over, petitioner did not derive any title from his mother as she did not challenge the impugned order of the Land Tribunal during her life time.
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge An