Karnataka High Court
Sri Pathris Rodrigues vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 28 October, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, B.V.Nagarathna
_;_
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT I3ANGA.I,,§)i.§I§:A._'
[DATED ' 'HIS 'I'I--~II«: 28'"? DAY" OF OC'I'OBESR._ ;:2;0 ;_. A'
PRESENT
THE HONBLE3 MR. JUST}C$ v.{§.TsAI3IHAIA:IVIfi** ' _
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTEQIE»I3.v.NA£3A}"2ATI?II§IA
W.A.N0s.S357~35'58{2d.iO(LR]
BETWEEN:
SR1 PATHRIS I-_2.0D_I"<_-IGULESI I I :
AGED 59 _
S/O LATE SYL'U"ES'T'E.R RQ~--DRI(__;UI:s '
SANOOR Ho~Us-E'.:"I, ' ..
BADABE;1;LUR"VILIi;%.G E' -&"POS'1"" A *'
BANTWALTQ; '
" ' ' ...APPELLANT
[By Sri: PLxE'N.[_jIIv'»,AI BHAT. ADV.)
* Q1'-» 1+I¢I.I3I:3»i:r'AiIfE OF KARNATAKA
BY SECRETARY
* DF:PARTMI$N'I' OF REVENUE
M,S.BiJH.DING
" BANGALORE 550 001
_ THE LAND TRIBUNAL
IBANIVVAL 'FM,UK
" BANTWAL, D.K.
REP BY ms CI--{AIRMAN
3 PADMANABI:-"IA POOJARY
DIECAI) ON 3.8.2010 AFTER THE DISPOSAL
OF VVRIT PIC"I7I'FION
SINCE': DECEASED BY HIS LZRS
I--J
3(a) SMT RAMAKKA POOJARTHY. MAJOR
W/O LATE PADMANABHA POOJARY
R/OF SANOOR--KANDADABEI"F1{'U
BADABELLUR VILLAGE 5: POST
BANTWAL TALUK._ D.K ._
3{b} SR1 DOMBAYYA POOJARY ~
S/O LATE PADMANABI-IA pOO.JAR*I<
MAJOR, R/OF SANOOR'AKF'xNDADAE3E?TU"S
BADABELLUR VILLAGE) &=I3OS'r
BANTWAL TALUK, _D.K
3(0) SR1 KESHAV'A.I'OO_JA;_RY A'
S /O LATE PADMANA}3H1\;'i3OOJARY_' __
MAJOR, R/OF SANOOI{»KANDADABEirrU
BADASI«:LLIgR- VILLAOI.«:.& .1?OST_ ' "
BANTVVAL TȤ';:L{.JI{.,"D.Ii _ "
3{d] S.RI'i.RAJESIIPOQIARY
S /O~LA_'I'E PAI:éMA1\IAI3ILo;'POOJARY
MAJOR," 12/ OF ~SAN4vOOR~_KAN DADAB ETTU
BADABEI.L'UR.VILLA(.__?{E & POST
f8AN'1'VVAL 'TALIJK.
SR1 NONAYYA'PO'OJARY
.. «.§DIED ON 23/08/2010 AFTER THE DISPOSAL
'- OP?""I?VRIT PETITION
V .. _t3I_NC1?;.D"P3C3I1ZASED BY HIS LRS
~. "'O.--.._«<;»{§2i] ~1O"'_'v'vSI\A'::*'I§/IUDDII POOJARTHY
' w/O LA.'i"E NONAYYA POOJARY
MAJOR, R/OF SANOOR--I§ANDADAIaI:'rTU
BAUABELLUR VILLAGE & POST
A BANTWAL TQ. D.K
"4{b} SR1 SADASHIVA POOJARY
S/ O LATE NONAYYA POOJARY
MAJOR. R/OF SAl\FOOR--KANDADA'BE)T'I'U
BADABELLUR VILLAGE «SI POST
BANTWAI, TQ. D.K
4(6) SR1 UMESIWI POOJARY
S / O LA'I'E NONAYYA POOJARY
MAJOR, R/OF SANOOR--KANI)AI)ABPZ"IT U.
BADAI-3ECII.LUR VILLAGE & POST.
BANTWAL TQ, I).K
4[d) SR} KOSHORE POOJARY
S/O LIATE NONAYYA POOJARY
MAJOR. R/OF SANOOR-KANDADABET'TU_--u'7
BADABELLUR VILLAGE & POST "
BANTWAL TQ, D.K ._
5 SMT FATHIMA
w/0 LATE SEKE BEARY.
MAJOR "
"LA'F]33 HOUSE"
BADAGABELLUR POST
BAN'lWAL TALUK,"'D_.K _ " "
2 .5' 4 A RESPOND ENTS
[By Sri: D vIJAYA.VKUMAR,~AGA'E'0wR RI &*2; {CP.NO.569/ 10
FILED BY SRIPRASANNA:VV§I.R.CO§?_1\ISEL:'FOR C/R33 AND
R~3 IS REP_QiRTED_ To DEAD UN 3««8-10 AFTER
DISPOSEZD DP' 'EHE"'W__? AN.D"~IIIE_ I;'RS,ARE ARRYED IN THE
CAUsETITLE..IQI?_\,I[A) ' '
Tatsg;wR'IT~-._API>Em»__13- FILED U/S 4 OF' THE
KARNATAKA. HEGHWCOU T.._A--cT PRAYING To SET ASIDE
THE ORDER "1--">A'sSED'*~--._ IN THE WRIT PETITION
3514~ I5/2009 DATED22/7/10.
qTE*I£%se.Ap«pea15(ID'IDing on for PI'€1iI11iI13.X'y Hearing this
d';Iy;» FT-J, delivered the foliowingz
JUDGMENT
A 'l"heEe §1..-ppeals are filed -by the unsuccessful pe1.iti()neI' W.I3..Né».3514-I5/2009. being aggrieved by the order by the learned singfe judge dalied 22.7.2010, detlixlixlg to inte1'fI:re with the Order passed by the Land TI'ibLl11a1. Bantwal, Dakshina Kan1'1ada Digtrici, dated 1.3.2.1979, \V1'1EE1'EEi!'} 25 <*.en£'s of land has beeII gI'2'.1I1tecE in _(,_ confirming occupancy 1*ig}1t in a portion of Sy.No. I27 and-the Writ petition is filed after 30 years and the older-:o'i7--"ii:he'.. learned single judge is justified.
6. The material on record clearly show léiliatl 't.--hew contention of the appeliant.--wriVt: p4etitio'ner"~in chalvileniginglilies order dated 15.12.1979 passe'd">.:VVby 'then 'i'ribunal, Bantwal, Dakshina Kaitltgiada asV'Aitdvg1'a1ited occupancy right in favour Sy.No. .127 / 2 measuring 0.25.. in Sy.No.12'f/3 measuring aside is that notice had not «"oc'(:u;pancy right had been granted ° of the land in which occupancy had .bec_ri graiited in favour of the petitioner. .v,"l'he v~tn.ai;eA1*ial on"-irteoord would further show that: on A";_veriii-nation'«.ol7,:t]j1e original record, the learned single judge i'o.u.n'd-.Vt'}1at.'tfhelsaid contention the petitioner has not been served" with notice while granting occupancy right. in favour respondent, Nos. 3 and 4 Vide impugned order cannot be __i~ac"ce'p't.ed the records reveal that the petitiozner had .._4"a'ppeai'ed before the tribunal and consented for confirmat.ion id of occttpazncy right in a portion of the land in Sy.No..127 in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and ftirthezr the material -7- on record would Clearly show that what was granted to the petitioner has already been granted out of 12 a1ere_.v'l7.5"-cents of land in Sy.N0.127 and what is gr_ant,ed to;'resf)dndeiét'_'N0;e-3 ll is 25 eents in Sy.N0.E2'7/ 2 a1'1d.t:r:) 1':é'sipe)ride;1't Cents in Sy.l\l0.127/3. Wherefore, itfisl elVear1ltAlA:.at,... _tlj1e3 writ L' petition which is filed after 3o_:3}éa§s.,9_1' Olfivlfl}/16' Order by the tribunal is the only reason assigned for delay and was served and being tire the learned single judge ufivndlthat the order passed by does not suffer from any error olflaxv calls for interference in this intra eourtlaptieal,'j--Aee0lrdir1gly, the appeal is dismissed. Sdfé §UDGE Si/5 EUDGE