Giriyappa Gowda Since Dead By His Lrs vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Giriyappa Gowda Since Dead By His Lrs vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2008

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

ﬁl
u

93

ﬁat

  Soudha, Bangalore - '

r*='*\

"( )

  ﬂ
\/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

Dated this the 25"' day ._ofMarch, zoos  % j ' 

Before

HV

THE H01_V'BLE MR-JUST-IGIVEJ 
.IiaV2!_.3»:%  .m'   «. " 

IInr- '----,

StiGin'j§rappa Grrwda -r f" -
Yoginfira Gpwda S/To izifrsn   _
65 yrs, Kallungundi, Te§;_11a'ha_liiTal{;k   ._ 
Shimosa      I a  
Srili Tejaépa  Si"-92?! 
S!o1ate3(,31i.ri5résppa (3-owdafj '   
Af31i_|3ur6iV' " gt; 

S,¥';i.'ncgaTAL'é':.'a'ict 

sum (3. 'yrs
S/o Giriyappa 'Gowda, ,;Kal1agtmdi_ Village

Teerti1ai1aii1'Taiu1;,  ﬁisiﬁct Petitioners

 V.  (By    A:&89eiates,? Adv.)

   *  " 

Stats: sf ii:-.[.-r.ata.'<a - by it" '"""'=-*' Sec-re!.=::':.r

\./I ll"

; s   Tri_bunal, Theerthahally Taluk
 'fihimoga

Sri D N Subbarao -- since dead by LR
Sri D N Mahabalu. Rao, 60 yrs '

R/o Sampagara Araga Post
Thtsgrmalzalli Ialulg Shimoga

    



:-I

_\lD

Sri Yellappa Slo Kollanna @,
Kolluranna Gowda ~ since dead by LR
Sri Neelappa, 38 yrs

Sri Vasappa -- dead by LR
Sri Shashishekar, 35 yrs   

Sri Venkappa Gowda @, Venkappaizth  " T . ii' A

(n
uu 3, Sic Kelluawne ~ewdeV

Sri Keshava Gowda, 66 Y"

Sfo Kolluranna Gowda

Sti Thimmappa Gowdadﬁﬁ   V  "
Slo Kolluranna Growda ' ' ' e

R4-8 are r/oéiiallugtmdidifiliewge   - . V_ 
.A..1.'é!ﬂt! Post; Ti*.§2e:tl:s1,l1;1Llj Tatiulg 

 I*v"*';aritf2a'§}1.wS!e 'I*.rEer§.g,%5ial:,"-8%}  

 Rudraielqv Sioivivianngaiah, 58_y%é

  
HalWahrag:~ama, Majdtm 

V _'_l'heertailaall'y T;t1uk,*Shi1':tbga Respondents

= _ (By_j_'s}i Nediga GP for R1-2;

' Ptakash Hegdei Adv, fer C.f1l_6--8) "l'3etition is ﬁled under Art.226f227 of the Constitution praﬁng =te. quhsh the order dated 26.12.2002 by the Land Tribunal, V 1"hee1ta§ii2a_I?E1.

' 'A A' This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this the Court made the d fellowing:

.Jé~ \-/I . Hence''t1iisEp"etltien.

4.30 acres of Kadegadde village'. one D T' Koiluranna Gowda and'Rudrai.f1li' as -- an application was ﬁled by them on__ in .otliei?llVp5Vi-operties regarding which the Land enquiry by its order dated 5.7.1977 respect'btj'V other survey numbers. Subsequently, after the ordeizot' the respect of different survey number the petitionfsi' ﬁled Foran 'A7 'WlllGll'iS 'dated 19.5.1979 which came to be rejected.

Hea". t..e icon_nse1 for the petitnners, cntnsel representing the According to the petitioners' counsel , in so far as items in second it Form 7 ﬁled by them, it was not considered by the Land Tribunal earlier and the second Form 7 ﬁled was well within time and could have been adjudicated .i1eu-J gr by the Land Tribunal. In stead, stating that it is a second such appiication being ﬁled, it has rejected the application which is not proper. petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Tribunal it " . Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in respect of the said cutfvey«nur'rihcr aieo. in nu: I-II I 'IV-III IV' 'I 343-05: :\«0 mi ll_)&.'_..au'.i_......'li.. ...._ ya ,1. ll l'1_n 'll; Elerktmnnu second application is not tnaintainahle'. Government .Pleade;j Rule 19 of the Land Reforms Rules, it is for the to ma1I:e.a_ mention of all such tenanted lands at a stretch and to 'Seek for adjudicatioii:.. a claim is made by the applicant in respeeiof acme.' the which has been adjudicated and once againptheiipetitioneasﬁ axe for one more pmperty on the ground that it had application firm which is not maintainable. I'._ ._ .'_-. 4 .. ...... . 2 .. .....

A3 .. .. a __ .. '4. .. .. 41.

-"I "H; Hlﬂlﬂlll H5, ll I5 HI'? I. III eeuerai properties which has been considered and the Land Trihunai by order 27.12.1979 granted occupancy rights but this is second such application _ hand although according to the petitioner it is not mentioned in the ﬁrst l.H.__)..-2"

application ﬁled and also it is against different person and is alsoﬂled well within time of the appointed dated i.e., 30.6.1979, that is to'.§a§rlVﬂle'oecond application is ﬁled on 9.5.1979, that application ought to have''beenVVc'onsideied'~ ._ by the Land Tribunal and he ought to have granted. v In so far as maintainability al'_'tla.o second applicatioaiea 7 concerned, this Court in the decision noteiclaupra has; reterrillgito Giriyapp's case reported in 2000 (1) 55:1 aid it _ ----_ - _ _ ,. .--» .

ll.

eaddnrl nun I8'?

1 1 wt-Inna. .4 I v'ry' atiiiiicant Si'-l_0uigl"'i'si:ato in the sa,iid-ill' the"'appiication - Form 7 the ('I particulars of otlleaj the land held by any other member hia opener orntenant. Rule 19 also envisages that applicant ailall of all the lands held under each separate tenancyin oneiior _rnore".'tha'ra taluk in which the applicant claims to be it " mg-,gistei'ed:»_Aas occtlpalit' 'The requirement that the application must he exhaustive-oifl all .the--"lands claimed by the applicant obviously is, based on 'anti preventing piece meal applications so that there may be '.V.consolidated:_ enquiry and hearing by the Tribunal competent to decide a application and such. __1_ 18 based on ,-d-r 11 Rule ,2, CPC Th-

- al.t'§;-ve "....Lo .-"ables .1-.e .ri...-.nal .o consider at a etleteh an the lands ..e.d uj-' ﬁe awlicant "r arr 'f th' family r""'hers "d "i'1"'er such lands are it nurnlier e Lnd nlown -r.

tenanted lands or not and to see that the applications so ﬁled containall the particulars of different tenanted lands. This Court in the above' decision has held that only one application is maintainableﬂ .notA.l.:'the I I V ! V ....e .n,-ginal applies-..:en .-.tse.f '*"-'M -'---"'=~"'7f " *'"- "- " r" tli"

f a secoraiiappiication.aiierjhthehfirstllapplication was considered and disposetﬁof: oi'l?ti1]e' 19l:is to ﬁle such application in Form 7 makinnl at groperties at a stretch. However, the is that, the amendment application within the Vvaisnointed date i.e., 30.6.1979 providcdvVV_Vbel°orc the Tribunal regarding such applieatien beirunlcliilcdfaatid clear, "l second or subsequent applications are not mah1tain'ahQle;~ VI' do in the order of the Tribunal in such scco::tiV_Vanplicatio.ii although it is in respect of different survey For'thei'i'oregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Land Tribunal, V."i"neertaiiaiiil3~does not call for any interference. Petition is dismissed. it \ SdI-

judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court