Karnataka High Court
Sulaiman S/O Ahmed Beary vs The Land Tribunal Bantwal on 8 February, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 8" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 20 i> Me, BEFORE . wets THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE Hi. BILLAPPA a W.P.No. 48382 / 2004 ( LR BETWEEN: 1. Sri.Sulaiman, S/o.Ahmed Beary, Age 60 years, . Occ: Agriculture: Kadeshwalya V illage, Bantwal Taluk. -- D.K.District.~ 2. Sri.Aodui Rahiinati, ~~. S/o. Aboobakkar Beary, me Age 54 years, NS Occ: Agriculture, .. Kadeshwalya V 'illage, ~. Butwal-Taluk, DK. District... ...Petitioners © (By Si.V.R Prasanna, Adv.) ool, " Thé.Land Tribunal, Rep. by its Chairman, '~- Bantwal, D.K. District. bo 2. Sri.Mahammed Kunhi, S/o.Bapa Beary, Age: Major, R/o.Thekkar Village, Belthangadi Taluk, D.K.District. we ~~ Reepanidents a (By Sri.Shashidhar.S.Karamadi, HOOP for R- yy : (By Sri. Anandarama Prashanth & Vikrara, 'dvs. for R- ay. Bk ae This W.P. is filed u/A.226-& 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the orde¢ dated quash the order of the Land Tribunal dated 28.9.2002 refusing to grant occupancy rights over the Land in question, true" copy of which is produced at Annex; A. etc... " ae This W.P. coming op tor Hear ring 'this day, the Court made the following:- a G R bP GORDE R. In this weit, pe 'tition, > under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of, India, the: petitioners have called in question, the order dated 28.9.2002, passed by the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, in. case No.TNC.12286/74-75 vide Annexure-"A'. Qo. By - the impugned order, the Land Tribunal, : ~Banbwal val has rejected the claim of the petitioners for grant of : . oecupanicy rights in respect of Sy.No.204/1C of Kadeshwalya _ : 4 2¥2 . b village. , "YS RORPAWNNLAReNRENemrene Oo 3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have fled this Ses writ petition. 4, Briefly stated the facts are: the petitioners 'lait ; that the first petitioner and the father of the second pe etitioner | were tenants in respect of Sy.No.204/ ic : of "Kadleshwalys village measuring 2.91 acres and es , ertain othe or lands situated at Kadeshwalya village. SyNo 204/1 i . is situated in a compact block abutting. "Sy. Nos. 204 /iA, 205/38, 205/4, 205/5, 205/6B. 208/ 7B whieh were gt anted in favour of the first petitioner. ahd Sy: Nos: 205/iC, 205/2B, 207/1B, 207 /2A, 207 / iA, 2 OF, / 2B whieh ¥ were granted in favour of the second petitioner's S father - "it is stated, the petitioners and their farnily 'members have been in possession of the lands as on LL 13. 197 4. and continued to be in possession. In - 7 W. P. No, 10578) 3.977 the grant of occupancy rights in respect "of Sy.Nos. 205 /3B, 205/4, 205/5, 205/6B, 205/7B. 204/1A -& 204/ Ve, of Kadeshwalya village has been quashed and the matter has been remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, \ \ the impugned order has been passed granting oeeupancy rights in favour of the first petitioner ine respect . of Sy.Nos.205/4, 205/5, 205/6B, 205/7B and 20 04/1 iA, : of 7 Kadeshwalya village, measuring 82 PETES, 7 cents, 1 ] 7 cents; 5 - cents and 14 cents respectively. T he claim of 3 ane potitoners in respect of Sy.No.204/1C of Kadéshwalya village measuring 2 acres 91 cents is rejected, Theréfore, this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for. the petitioners contended that the impugned oder: insofar as it relates to rejection of the claim in n respect at S; r .No.2 264, / iC is concerned, it cannot be sustained in. law. | Hie © also submitted that the spot inspection reveals that the. pe "titioners are in possession and cultivation | oF f the | land in - sy. No.204/1C and therefore, the Tribunal was net "justified in rejecting the claim in respect of - 7 Sy. No! 204/10 and it cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that though there is no claim in Form No.7 in "respect of. Sy.No.204/1C, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to { -- grant occupancy rights. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2005 Karnataka page 21it. 6. AS against this, the learned counst! for the second, ; respondent submitted that the impugned order does "pots call
for interference. He also submitted that' the una valding into consideration that there is. "he claim in I Forra No.7 in respect of Sy.No.204/1C and the doctinients produced by the second respondent show that the petitioners forcibly entered the land and the and | is: a Lpunga tated t has rejected the claim in respect of Sys No. 0.804/ iC and therefore. it does not call for interference.
= The learned Government Pleader supported the impugned order. and submitted that the Tribunal has no jurisdic tion io. ar gra ant: occuparicy rights in respect of the land for whieh ne Ren No.7 has been filed and the petitioners
- "Han? no loctis standi to maintain the writ petition and "therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. He placed reliance on the following decisions:
5! _ {oe _SheRaneNtinsmteonR tran
i) ILR 2000 Karnataka Short Notes No.15
(ii) 1999(1) Karnataka Law Journal page 209 a
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made > by the learned counsel for the parties,
9. The point that arises for my consi ideraiion is, Whether the impugned order calls Jor interfererice?
10. It is relevant to 0 nove, tne Ta has granted occupancy rights itrespect of S\ sy. Nos.2 a5/4, 205/5, 205/6B, 205/7B and 204/1 LA of Katte eshiwalya village measuring 82 7 cents, | 1 15.cents and 14 cents respectively.
The grievance '0 of the: petitioners is that the Tribunal has wrongly rejected the claim in respect of Sy.No.204/1C of Kadeshwalya vil Hage. I do not find any merit in this contention. ta Porch No.7, the petitioners have not claimed
- occuparicy rights in respect of Sy.No.204/1C. The Tribunal : "faking into 'consideration that there is no claim and the
- doc suments produced by the second respondent has rejected tie Claim in respect of Sy.No.204/1C. The learned counsel "] for the petitioners placing reliance on the decision. of this Court reported in ILR 2005 Karnataka page 2111 contended that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant océ 'spancy 1 ri alits 7 in respect of survey numbers which. are not c claimed, ~ do riot find any merit in this contention, for the 'reason: "in the said decision, it is held if the "survey | number 'is "wrongly mentioned, the Tribunal . can ver ify. a :d ascertalii't the correct survey number and grant cepa rights. tt does not mean the Tribunal can, grant occupa: icy Tights ia respect of survey number which i is not ¢ clainiea. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in: rejecting t the claim ti seapect of Sy.No.204/1C. I do not find ony error or ilie egality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. - There is no merit in this writ petition and it is