U F M Venkatesh vs The Land Tribunal on 20 June, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

U F M Venkatesh vs The Land Tribunal on 20 June, 2008

Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda

IN THE I-{IGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
Dated this the 20:1: day of JUNE , gcso3 %  % u
BEFORE 3   

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE g%,»ksREEN%r«§é$ G%)wm§ ' ~   

WRIT PETITION No.;3g6835 /'_j,2i)£)3,A.(LR}-  5

Between:

U.F.M. Venkatcsh,  _  _  
S/o. S ym3&"BmA_Q  . ,.  
Agtrd about 50 yrs, ' '      "
R/0. Gudubalii village,
Holagaddc    :   ' 
North  fli=st*','?'..__   " .  ' _  
Presently Ri»at%%i3?4cr0$s;%M ~  
Hosamanm V'

Slxilnogia, ' , V

. . PE'I'I'I'IONER

 (By4§Sﬁ.R.V.Jayr§pfa}céLsh, Adv. for petitionmx)

  " 

 

1.' - TheL21nd Tribunal,
  tzaluk,
K11?-lta+
= 4_ Rep. By its Chairman.

" The State of Karnataka,
Rep. By its Secretary to Govt,
Revenue dept,

' M.S.B1dg,, Dr.Am.bcdkar Veedhi,
Bangalore.

 



made in respect of 10 guntae of land in Sy.No._1/3 of
Holagadde village, Kumta taluk and granting  of

the said land in favour of the feurtzh xesponderif. V 7'  

2. I have heard Sri.Ia_R.1j2a.féuy§épi4akasi2gf-Le,_'_Viezgzineti--.A'I

Counsel appearing for the peﬁ§one1?,_e11d   
learned Counsel appcafilmg   $0.4 and Sri.
Sathyanarayana   Govt. Pleader
appearing for     " 
3. €F*a.i.r';_t,e  this writ petition are
    namely Shankaranarayana

Bhat to: be4V the' in respect of 10 guntas of land

 v  in  191 V'0f.§aI9iagadde village, Kumta taluk, filed Form

 ---.'.1'ribu::1a1, Kumta, seeking to register him as

 fhe land. At the same time, the fourth

 --- Ramakrishna, also made Form '7 to the same

  "ii Tribunal, seeking to register him as occupant of the

'    land. The Land Tribunal by its earlier order -Annexure

 

'TB' dt.24- 10-78 considered the claim of the petitioner and

@y.



 

4
registered him as occupant of the land and rejected the claim
of the fourth respondent

4. Sri. Jayaprakash, learned Counsel appeaﬁng for the petitioner vehemently contends that the "of the Land Tribunal (it. 24-10-78 registering °-of the land and rejecting the claim of not been challenged by the but eoyzaaaid %% order of the Land Tribunal oias questioned by the . 'uﬁo1e, namely Mahabaleshwar writ petition No.27099/ 1996' e. Court allowed the said writ; i:1§;e"ea1*ﬁer order of the Land Tx~ibun:;1 dt. 24-10-78 and remitted the Kuinta for reoonsideraﬂon in aocroxfdargoe reconsideration, the Land 'I'rib1mal V. ' &o'f'ﬂ 1e Petitioner and gamed the occ11pEu'1C¥ ' in question favour of the fourth ' V V ' ' respondeim A .. 1 It is the contention of Sri. Jayaprakash, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that though fourth respondent has not challenged the earlier order of the Land Tribunal, passed vide Annexure *3' dt. 24-dd1od;t7e,a and the same became ﬁnal, in so far as the concerned, it is not open to AV occupancy right in his favour. It his the fourth respondent is ownet of the Zand, namely Shet, being his brother's son and he claim against his own family' clear, it is stated that am Ganapathi Shet are direct --- Ramakrishna, is the Sri. Jayaprakash also brings to my notice records relating to the land in V. "Q11§~§tton""Ah€1V¢ etandiilg in his name continuously, relevant period of 1-3-74 and prior to that. . Be the Land Tribunal is required to consider the petitioner has been cuitivating the land in A 'question as tenant on 1-3-74 or prior to that. The Land is also required to consider the fact that the fourth VA ' " Vrespondent having applied for grant of occupancy right in respect of the same land, and his claim having been rejected % by the Land Tribune} by its earlier order vide Armexgue 'B' (it. 24- 10-78 and the fourth respondent having noﬁ the said order before this Court, whether reconsidered and he be xeg'ste3:ed"s.s, 'of1' the order passed by this Court J the uncle of the fourth

6. At this the learned Counsel for to me that this Court pf, No. 27o97/ 1995, set asidemtixew Tribunal, passed vide AImex'o_IE__ -with a direction' to the Land reoonsiderr olatter afresh after issuing notice to aL'_§the including the fourth respondent. V'Be. axoay, the Land Tribunal is required to consider with the provisions of the Land V and in the light of the observation made by this its order passed in W.P.No.27()97/1996. While

-- so, a duty is cast upon the authority to consider the T " of the fourth respondent, bearing in its mind that he is claiming tenancy under his family member. It is open to the M3 fourth respondent to contend before the Land Tribnznal that he is not claiming tenancy under his family when the Land Tribunal has failed to consider and failed to consider the mattcfiiiixi __ AV obscxvaﬁons made by this A deem it just and t}.1ca"?_I'nnticr for rcconsidcration. Hence; ~.j;hc - .. A The i The impugned order, 'A' is inside. Matter is rmittcd to the 'a.:':§1iz'6ction to reconsider the matter in accordance oioirioions of the Land Reforms Act and V' also the. iigt obsezvations made by this Court in All the contentions raised by the parties V arc ii§c;ptThc Land Tribuzoal is directed to conﬁde-.r the ' " 'f_Vnr.aAttcr issuing notices to all the parties concerned and VA them an oppoxtunity of hearing. Jud

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court