Karnataka High Court
Gurubasamma C. Ballari And Other"S vs The State Of Karnataka By Reprt. on 14 June, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
T
14
DATED THIS THE DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PtTITION NO.68041/2011 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. GURUBASAMMA C. BALLARI
AGE: 65 YRS, RiO. KAMBLIHAL,
TQ: HUNGUND, BAGALKOT.
2. JAYAMMA W/O. BASANAGOUDA METI
AGE:60 YRS, 0CC: HOUSE HOLD,
RIO. LINSGURU, DIST: RAICHUR
3. SHARNAMMA W/O. MAHARUDRAPPA YADDADLDAODD
AGE: 58 YRS, 0CC: HOUSE HOLD,
RiO. JANEKALLU, TQ:MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR
PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.K. Malligawad, Adv.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.
-2-
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HUNGUND
TQ: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(Sri. K.B. Adhyapak, Govt. Adv. for Ri & R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the proceedings in KLR-I S R NO.940 initiating against the mother of the petitioner and after her death against the petitioners mentioned at Annexure-E and order dated 17.03.2007 at Annexure-F. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
Petitioners' mother filed declaration under Section-66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal declaring her total holding. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 29.4.1977 concluded that there is no surplus land held by the declarant. The said order dated 29.4. 1977 is produced at Annexure-B. In view of the said order, the VP -3- declaration filed by the petitioners' mother was accepted and the proceedings were closed.
The Tribunal again suo motu reviewed the earlier order dated 29.4.1977 by passing another order dated 29.4.1982 vide Annexure-C holding that petitioners' mother is possessing 3 acres 31 guntas of land in excess of the holding. The petitioners' mother instead of questioning the order dated 29.4.1982 vide Annexure-C, unfortunately questioned both the orders at Annexures-B and C before this Court in Writ Petition No.25102/2005. This Court quashed both the orders and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunl, Hungund for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
2. It is relevant to note here itself that the Tribunal by order dated 19.3.2002 vide Annexure-E held that petitioners' mother is possessing 3 acres 31 guntas of land 5 V -4- in Sy.No.39/B/1 in excess of the holding and called upon the petitioners' mother to surrender the same. Notice also came to be issued as per Annexure-F dated 17.3.2007 calling upon the petitioners' mother to appear before the Land Tribunal for fresh enquiry. Order of the Land Tribunal dated 19.3.2002 vide Annexure-E and notice Annexure-F are called in question in this writ petition.
3. As aforementioned, an order came to be passed in favour of the petitioners on 29.4.1977 holding that there is no surplus land held by the declarant. This Court is at loss to understand as to under what circumstances and as to why the said order also came to be questioned by the petitioners' mother before this Court. Moreover the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 29.4.1982 vide Annexure-C reviewing its earlier order dated 29.4.1977 was illegal inasmuch as the review cannot be made after two years from the date of the original order. Therefore the -5- petitioners' mother should have merely questioned the order Annexure-C dated 29.4.1982. Instead of doing so, the petitioners' mother has questioned both the orders and this Court quashed both the orders and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal.
4. Since the order dated 29.4.1982 vide Annexure-C is quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25102/2005, the order at Annexure-E dated 19.3.2002 cannot be sustained and the proceedings based on Annexure-E cannot go on. However, the proceedings based on the notice Annexure-F should be proceeded with in view of the fact that this Court has remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not have any property except the property bearing Sy.No.39/B/1 measuring 3 acres 31 guntas.
V -6- Be that as it may, it is for the petitioners to substantiate their case before the Land Tribunal.
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/a.
JUDGE )