Karnataka High Court
Vadiraj Achary vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2012
I'\ I hF 111(111 (01 RI OT KR'\ \rAK U' B NO41 01(1
1'TF1) TIlTS flfl' "7 TflV LW' Fflfl .\R\ I9
131,1 01<1
THE HON'Bl P MR JUSTICE H.BILL 4PPA
VRH'lCfflOX 's.ii 1 2()i I il_Ri
BETWEEN.
Vadil ;tJ At ban'.
S o.I ate Kantliappa chan
's I49ear%
H •t 6 27(AL Ok! No.3 3:3.
M iii uia Mane
I rut ilait1t Yrthi.
I3aiu' '1 [aink. I) K . I' 'fl•o t
(3 S I lint I
AND:
Sinit' ' T(u:;ntik:i.
tP ) UlInt 111 ft F
' )L 1' t' 11
tel) 1 l u ir
t
2 i a II ii. ''
(1 ' It --
•1' 1
, 1
ç t
' •.t ; ; ,.
.. •h :. •'
9:
I tr' I.
(I ',iI Shashidli ii S Kaiarnacl II( (I I n K 1 & I
V
'ni I N Ra4Iiup 1Th I w Sii Ni i%In qi i'i I'
Jstpt' IliR
ii 4 t I ii ii i'k
Ut (ontitution ol Iiulii f)icflhI)L iii tht IC tic
1 2011 plsed In th '(%J)')i Ic it I ti I
Bui ii D K icIc Annc 's.
Iii' *iit petition coininø on c ' CI tim p 1 ci C I
h di flu (ouit mik thc fli Iw
ORDER
'ii C t I
i I C ii
.1
\ flU\ ((I IA that [Ill N' Itinll( 1 Ii hilt I ii A '1
il 1
I A 1 1 11 I 11 ( I
h- t'rc iN Uiiiii1 in lvsflt 1 t '\ \c, -
lip I
I t I ' t1 i F -J x ill g su' ri ii'
rnp' 1 1VUIV. HR pet jilt ttu'r% Ia! iwi 1 lIni I F(il'H I
iLl i, up 1 t3ht -p((I I S a
1) lii-. Jut' i11i)iiIti !)\ tI if
t ''
i
-
1 1 I
I
C- It fits I Ii i 11 L HI LP 'A;
a I I P 11
IisitIt IiI1iI IIt i'i: I
_L &LA &t & K
r
n
1 r JHtnt h1L'(' iI I 1-I '_
iKs:
( \
--i.'--I :'t
I -- I
I
" P' 1 ')( St i ) ) ci Vfth Ki.abi 'Iill"t 11 i(Inr(
: fiI it lOll
I t it '4 itItilt 'c ) ) lit' lilt tt itt '1. (1 H
01 jc. 'ii )fl' e. ontenclinc that ila uid i I
nit sl1riiiQ 2 a rn 2 , t lits and uthet 1 tlIil" I)t Ii. iignl It Vie
joint 1:lfllnV ol liii' re%poildent \t1.3 anti ilw flianctw 1 Id thi
I 1113 tdS n U '\ X' uk ii' in ma Ills 0 lIt' ii ' 4.'' .n ) ''
"I 1)a ci pu itic i tic tp 't . ts )
r
jenuit nu1 j.n. j.n liii's I t L'
11114
1 adilil s t
s '--tatt'tl. nit. ]nl ILl pje '4i,iui Vd'. ipi ji :iI1 • :
I.'•; :
v a milrr j'ersonai dlii' at it Li ''I lii' i'i'J -s i --, - !'
1i 1 ii Lb M 1 1
k 'ia- int' "1 , '' --
•1 '
!_.i •: J.i',j.' 'ii ' ill 11ILIIILIL' tr''i j . •.j ! .1, ''
ii -- -.' %•_ I'..', •.:- a
a
e i
i,. , ..!_a .1 ' ---- -- --
.1
jj%p; 01 L)rt)PCfl v% fit VllIc'li lW ((ft 4% j)i r--sr--l' 'Ii (iTt i4 '
% Nn.gn,' lilt' 'I q n if' '4 l1l. 1' lI%. jii lq.f. .1 ii. i'.
Ii' 1" %jfl't I 'ii iii.' Jti.il', '.liit 11 't rt It 1I'I1(' LI fi) lt'•
I'. (I th€it ii' b " iiiln'Iii
'at , ttl: '. . --
I)o%%tsIciI ilic flt(11(1 stattcI iUt1iOI1i11z. radii ol iii 1 01
•" PCI ilic 1t1IflS iii'! C UfldItlOI igreccl thiGH b4 Tic Ic
ritIi1 Cd U ti' fk 1 1 1 1 Ii flit t
1 aPi
tilt1. F ho 1 )cutit t 1 lii i ii C
it Sc. liE fl( 11 1 1 'l , .V
is flit I C C 0. '((Cud
1c1'flhhI 1)1 iii ) -is pi t
.') I) Ski Ss.\ . .3 'tthi I)
out Sink ippa '&'vl )fl 11)1 . U 6 ' Ft
• '''
c', ni!;a_ F_ . :.'-- 'itt' --pt n. \.. -If
j I 1• . ' ' • I. -- '
I --' SI
ii I tj J-. --t-'.':ct ' H ! I i Ii a1 '
--
--':j-)iI •
I'' Iii 1211': %. '4 ,. • ., .
!st 1 • '.. ., .., ,.
,• ,
--. t _,j',_ •1t• ' n'' .' I '.1
I•I .1 -.
• S • _f._ I- .
• it
1 .t .
1 J ''
I I t
P
• • f, a.)s 'S ti 'I.
• • •• • ••'
: a
I I 'U '. jit iii Ii ' a' J
Ii . ii' 'It )i 'c .% (V ijp. (
•' I -- . ': •!I'f.. ' _.;1 • ir '--1 '
•'
1. -? i .1
. •1
1' I!i .L9>tj.) 1'(ftj1!jljT1III EItTflhLltcbL1 'ilj' T" .I.fl(fli 411
) PT • )T
1111
:'tz" t'lI,'TTT • tI'Ii'9U.)tj\( 7T!_04% p.t)tTt:q II'TTi T I3IZ1!
"1'T
'.ir n I" TT,iT I I '.1(11 i'Ll i
'I' i tNU j 61
i '' 1 • ,n
q
1 .,cfTi' '7 A U iflAj .71 TJW) ) ej\'
Iii'
ill. jj
,
1
.
TjJ .
j
T 'I(iL Ut "Ii LII 'a37flfl'LJiI
" P ' V 111 Ti!i Ti 1TPTI 5jtTt IS flIT I' j4 1.1% IP*)a f l.a
I )fl lIMIT.
1 II) TIC 'Il• flW 'U pJflhI! ILTi).) 3.' If' h)_T .flfl
(l T'tI I fT'4 "\
'!'. LU) a P •lt !1I.l 11 •1\
--, q
1
; t 'H
•".t ''?; Ii' % (1 LII P1%I'(I 1 hi i'p r'i'
'.' LI) I' \
Ifl. )T1 F'.' )d I .T)i1 LflI .'Tfl I •L )\ AS diTpflJ 'ITT
flj
\j_J uI ucl I" ,Ts,4'(1 ') PPmI 111111 JlTh1I1S
'TI)
9
iiçlit, in faioui of Ilk ixtitioncI latlici lCanthiiia 4 1 iii ii
S. IX(t ol S Sc .) ) ii' i tuin 3 i c l( it '11 ) cr
t ( 11111 1' tl i ii
S flit liii Ciii t itIitt
'
it Itt I 11)11 ii
w sdekndint'aol nd ptiiiiittc I Inn 1 1 It
c ordinal Bhic. ii t 131 it lilciW I 14€ ) S3 i r
I ckr ii mc' i ) ( T)(fllj(y[ C I 1 11
i.ui',fiiiCI t t' 1' t i I
I. cc 1 1 (C
1 ni n C ib I c ii i
C 1 ) C
'I
llliii" I€unil Iii hit %;iitl JhLlliliOfl. Sv.Nn'. T. . and 7n '5 h11
In ti1 '--Ii in' t'i rc'p.tl'ii'in
10 1 Iii. tibunal uwfl up thc in jUt' I''! 'flnKkl ition
iii' Pl't)flcI ' I ithci Kanthapp 1. 'cli ii' lilt (I appliC 'lion l1
I L i io1i hit 'C I liibiu b c
41 intccl iiijiiitui kcsjxncic Iii \c lilt I U I I .'
t tlh ngiiig tic c icr cliii ci 9 S 001 H o I I IcC
aS' I ?('02. ril pe1iit;ii tv;,s tilowtG tiul thu i,itH 1 1)1 114-- : 1L1t:
ft ;lIi)ii.il .UL tpl.nlittl. '1 litie t%u' . 'Iii .iltu 1'. L1ii1d'i
.ip1ir.iiinn tilt ti •c the pt liunhiers n,li.rI 11)1 LiIi. I:.iJiit'lit.
Rt"pui icit nt. \c c thud ins .ibjcrtior I lit I aii'I liii,' iii ii i'
i chit 'IC rcj( H ii' ' I' i
Lilt I ii
1
,' itt ii -- 'I. ii -- t tI
ce-. i!.-- :•;;;'i' .1 lthsi I iii . ) .' • a • •
i:''. tatjtJ I a I
's...' ;., I' • .) t .. •:
Se
9
not a tenant in respect of the land in question. The contention of the petitioner that the Land Thbunal has deliberately failed to conduct spot Inspection Is not correct. The spot Inspection has been conducted and the report was already on record. Therefore, conducting of spot inspection once again does not arise. The Tribunal has considered the spot Inspection report. Therefore, the respondent No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder contending that the Land Tribunal at the first instance granted occupancy rights on 29.8.8 1 to the petitioner's father in respect of Sy.No.75/5 measuring 3 acres 10 cents. It was done after spot inspection and on the basis of the material produced by the parties. The Tribunal found that the petitioner resides in the land in question and cultivating the land. The petitioner's father produced levy receipt for the year 1974. The respondent who appeared before the Tribunal as General Power of Attorney failed to produced any documents to show that the 10 land in question was included In the order of the Trial Court appointing the receiver durIng 1962. Only in the second round of litigation during 2002, xerox copy of the order mel tiding appointment of receiver. ei iqu irv report and memo br taking possession of the land have been produced. There is a clear mention in Annexure R-2 produced by the respondent that most of the properties were in possession of the tenants and he had taken possession of only those which are in possession of the plaintiff. There is lot of variance in the lands Included In the final decree and the list produced by the receiver as per Annexure R-2. Even in the compromise petition filed by the respondent's family, It clearly shows that most of the tenants have been granted occupancy rights.
13. After the lapse of almost 18 years, this court quashed the order In W.P.No.2 178/97 filed by one P.Bheema Bhat and not by the respondent or his father. The order was quashed only on technical grounds. The Tribunal after remand has rejected the claIm mechanically without spot 'I insixctl )i' th it £00 s1ic ii In hi uit ii. lt I I a 101 iii%i ('tl(,ll 11 Ii i' ittil. O.S.\ ) 17 -- . uk 't ki iii Hi cii 1st 1 1 "1 Li1( %ChedtIle ii.1' lint irot1tt'tt1 hehw 1111 1 nI.' inal •iw l.eca-d% %Iinr Iliji I Sha'iikar i3hii 1i.tI t.,kui: .t'! i1 iioix tic it ul a Viii as ii 'ix 1 i sc't tip indcpcnclntt tenanc suainst titi i ee1 ci iiii. ii 4% rejeeti(1 1w 11w pp ibite Court • pci Aniwiirr K 7 'ciiI at u m in tHy 1 its ii c 1K 1l( i'i1 I 2s Xii' ii nit I a c 1' 1 i ft i't red ViI1 d;it ud ., 3 1 '7 'u ai iii hit %fl t i( flit Iii ch C(1 (trill fl 15 It 16 he )uCi'i c Id •' ' uc .1 U 11 1 ii ii .'c ciii 41 di crc --. c 'hilt ;u., :: 'iz' ';hi.a . I •' %1: 'i : • 1• •i I.it r 1 L r)' _1 .. .). ,; . .. I ••.I 17 Ii is %tItt'(I lilt' re%pnnti.l11 ha'-- SlclQt ifl.Ui.itfli n 'iv' lime i';
t'l Ut t1)PQTIY
'j It 'i..riiwII the •itsiI 1' •: • Iii
• '
•i'P •.L
ii P itt i Ut Itt (ii 1 C lit
lsttilih Iii tilt JiIV%tfll ( •I%L. ihit 'Llil ''1113 Jit't'Vi't 11 iii€
tathci arId hit SOil Vti ')hlltflVlS iii , 'lb IC Li U it
tUllE t (IC cli 's illi thit' Uit f ropi tilt-s ic'j ndc ii. •thI
.-jti\thiliQ iRIs 10 is' 'lout with tue 5
ie
i ' of the (OUfl fhe
'I 1 1 sil mItt p1. In hoi tlit PlalfltlfI itt tc I lii
and t,!t iii' l)ciI 1 1110! 'l1i •' 'ifljW' cii-- i. • •,
t; --I..
1w i )(ti I nt' ' tiaItc c)'. ft mat ('j'l c'I
h.
1 :nlirlfls .IZ' iii i_,r'.,l U ''I !i i's '•'!1 'h'- '"'i':•,;.e' S
I( 1 ii Is I _i'
SI % :i • Ilit' I'' list i'ti C -it •s i•'
- t I,, til ; tI'I' %lL(,!l
I
r", • •.--
--. - i.iii 71. • •Ii •'' .1. i• • • • I
I - I I. I' J IS
' :1' I i I
'• Ii .1
13
the petitioner has prayed to remand the matter for fresh consideration.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Impugned order cannot be sustained in law'. He also submitted that the Impugned order Is contrary to the material on record and against the spirit and purport of benevolent provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The finding of the Tribunal that the land in question is not a tenanted land is contrary to the material on record. 1'he petitioner has produced documents to show that he is a tenant and inspite of that the Tribunal has rejected the application and therefore, the Impugned order cannot be sustained In law. The finding of the Tribunal is arbitrary and for extraneous reasons. The material on record discloses that the petitioner and his ancestors have been cultivating the land ever since 1938 and the Tribunal deliberately failed to conduct the spot inspect ion and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Further he submitted that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner clearly show that the petitioner and his ancestors I, 14 ;-ere the tenants arid therefore. the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioner Is In possession of the land in question and if spot Inspection was conducted as requested by the petitioner it would have revealed theAsituation. Further he submitted that the receiver continued tIll 1973 and as on the date of vesting there was no receiver. He also submitted that the petitioner was a tenant and he continued to be a tenant as on 1.3.1974 and thereibre. the Thbunal was not justified in rejecting the application. He also submitted thai. the Tribunal has erred in not conducting the spot inspection and therefore. the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
18. PlacIng reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999(1) Supreme Page 226, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit red that I he petitioner Is in actual possession and cultivating the land and therefore. the entries in favour of the respondent No.3, If any, stood displaced and therefore. the Tribunal was i tot justified in rejecting the claim.
154'
19. As against this, the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the impugned order does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Tribunal on proper consideration of the material on record has rightly rejected the application and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. Further he submitted that Sy.No.75/5 was not a tenanted land. And In Form No.7 the applicant has state d that he was cukivating the land since 13 years. There is no document evidencing the tenancy. The petitioner has stated that himself and his ancestors were cultivating the land in question. In 1938 the lease deed was In favour of the petitioner's grand father and it was in respect of Sy. Nos. 81/5 and 81/6 and Sy.No.75/5 Is not there. He also submitted that in O.S.No.97/58 the receiver was appointed and he took possession of Sy. No.75/5 and other lands as per Ex.R
-2. He also submitted that the receiver after taking possession with the permission of the Court auctioned the right of cultivation in the year 1962. One D. Shankar Bhat was the auction purchaser and he took possession of the land In question and In turn.
he 16 4' leased It In favour of one Sankappa Gowda. The possession was not delivered by Shankar Rhat or Sankappa Gowda. Therefore. the receiver filed suit In 0.5. No.100/1963 and possession was taken through Court and thereafter. the cultIvation rights were auctioned and therefore. Sy.No.75/5 was never a tenanted land and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. Further he submitted that the claim Is not supported by any documentary evidence and the RTC entries do not support the claim of the applicant. He also submitted that the applicant was residing at Vera Kamba and not cultivating the land. Further he submitted that Sy. No.75/5 was the subject matter of O.S.No.97/58 and it has resulted In a compromise decree and the land In question has been allotted to the share of third respondent's father's branch and subsequently. Sy.No.75/5 has been allotted to the third respondent and therefore. the Impugned order does not call for Interference. He also submitted that spot inspection was not required as already there was a spot Inspection and the Tribunal has acted upon it. Further he submitted that when the receiver took possession of I I I ' I T I (Is) I I (III I '' - P IlL LI T) (C I'E II' ) 1WI 'I. 1 I I )l ) 1.1(1 S )TfI..JJ.'1iII lI)J I .11 1. I;. LM' T'i I T(r1 hull' ii U) i p1W TIQTIL!.)((tIcIl:
.M) UuJ •np
I' ii. U ),i
'' 11 I Tie) PT Jt')i'LlI I)jflflC
T
4 J
Tp SW [ P {) .9i 1HJJ.)[iflUO)
' fl\ t))
-'ii ' it • p!aJ IoTa • p Jiul Ill .t;1JoI iJlit1 to T-sq II I
-'L)UO)flI 1(1 liJi IC) .1110, \i'j 111 pull h)\3 S)LIJUTILJOJ' alp wti
pit IltT(ji)'- T) TilT) 11 ttllIpTi.b(T
J " N" -' P" k1J4j' II 14(4
"'! 9 1ITJ i II Th.'iS'.i(T l(J auiq '.1.1) hIll--. fl
P'
T
1 11 T)tlfl i%ulOLj I K
1
I flTS ca.ioI IT. %l'%S 1ul1.MIddl .)t1l PUp %ffUtT ITollaicIsu! Hid' alp
P T{1 I )fl!ITT(1fl-. °'P' '11 (SIT j'!II)
!'1'-'-' TI °L '.1:1) III 'tlIfl U I,.llh. I hUt " )i3UTT'1l1 'I"Ut' %'ik( .MJ1 In I KI' ST UI LII) ) TN vi j PTJ '--lITI!Il)l .)lgl n jars '4tPi.Y) a )i ))T1l .\JTttTlJ )IT!fli ' I TO TlOp'.i%SnCI UT .uas T q.u spun np LI 18 I
21. Further placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1999 (1) KCCR Page 5, the learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that wheii the tenant was not in possession of the land in question and the proceedings of the Civil Court indicate that Sy.No.75/5 was not a tenanted land, there is no need to remand the matter and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
22. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Tribunal should have considered the request of the petitioner for spot inspection as no prejudice would have been caused to either of the parties.
23. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
24. The point that arises for my consideration Is:
Whether the impugned order calls for bite,Jèrence?19
25. It Is relevant to note, the petitioner's father Kanthappa Acharv flied Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.75/5 of Vitla Kasaba measurIng 2 acres and 25 cents. By order dated 29/8/2981, occupancy rights were granted In favour of the petitioner's father In respect of Sy. Nos.75/5 and 75/6 measuring 3 acres 10 cents and 10 cents respectively which was questioned In W.P.No.4460/83. The matter was referred to Appellate Authority. Thercafter. the matter came back to this Court and It was numbered as W.P. No.2178/97. It was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the application filed by the 1)t'litioIier's lather. While doing so, the Tribunal has considered the following aspects:
9) That in Form No.7 the applicant has staled that he has been cultivating the land since 13 years. In the evidence. It Is stated since his father's time the land was cultivated under chalageni. The evidence is contrary to what is stated in Form No.7. In the documents pn 'chin cl 1n iii' w lit hinri thcn• j% 3n fll('iItU at "
No 7 I',. I' L P 1 in lit s o No 7 111th S ) .) a ntt 1 1hit LI ('fl fl( n ii di I X% P )3 1 ' a •i1 .-i:" 1 iii' t't iIIl'•t1 ()I ', •): ) . !:-- i ..; ! • Iucii Lit chalagtni C hit t\t(nb d ii Ii iii g lift P(liIioll(1 s itricl laths and unek.
(I) In 1n liii uis 'it ui ''is 3',
K. , arc ('oflCC HAd wriipiiuv eht', int Ic ri. .j uneci
in tin our ol Sonialali Auliarv. tilt' I)rolll( i of the applu .t'ir
x R I it ,u in t d t
i :1111 L.tlit r 'Iii ,' 1111141. .' I Ic "" 1II,t1;Lis 'i '. I". 'H
ii i r. Lt't in '- \o. ,. i' I''. K a in -
't in 'a
U c 4 1 (1 (
Ig . iItii 'i .• '0. '..t ; --' lrft •-- t
hf :1.1*1 I; lI .' r
ii' 1 1 1 at I N.
I?)
21
(iii) E'i..R 2 rcc iTs .li it ILC( nct has t flu ii
O %( S ilOit (I Sy NC 1 tlonp with (I lu-i leiTUl% iti (1
(it 1 jX' i. 'titi 'K hiamti L i
thi In re'--pt. I ol hit hut is '%
t
1li h Wttt t
c flc IdLI.
utd possvs'Ioii wa' mkt-ii liv the 'cc en r the Iciiufls han
cut urtci tc ill chft ix's Es H ' U I '1 md P ' II
iii 'Pt ii I I i Iii I nant TiC Vt I 111 i (Mt ii' 1(11
hi iflI(SIX.(tc Sj, \ 7 ,'
C' I rhti .' •Ii'--l)t I!i 'i h .
JII( elt). FD A 4 (" cil'' I) i)1 1)1 .',(' '!')1 ' '). \ --
'i% gi' • I' Ii, S1uik Li Ml
t
1 t Li'(P Li ''Lt' I ri'1
'.L 'Sh)iI \LL'IIiLCt liittt I ILJahiL.
. I t
ik; H I I I
"Ll'iI l i
I
ii
11 V I V 1
22
show that Kanthappa Achary is not In any way concerned with Sy.No.75/5.
(vii) The levy receipts produced bv the petitioner do not relate to Sy. No.75/5.
(viii) Exs.R- 17 to R- 19 voters list show only Somaiah Achary and his family members are residing at Vitla and applicant was not residing at Vitla prior to 1971. From ExsR.51 to R.53 also It is clear that applicant was not residing at Vitla prior to 1971. The land was in possession of Court receiver and It is clear from Exs.R- I to R7. R13 and R.39. the applicant Kanthappa Achary or his father Subbaiah Achary were not the tenant of the land in question either prior to receiver taking possession or prior to 1.3.1974. The oral and documentary evidence do not establish that the applicant was the tenant and on the other hand Exs.R-l to R.51 establish that the land In question was not a tenanted land. Therefore. the Tribunal has rejected the application.23
26. It is relevant to note. in Form No.7 the applicant has mentioned that he was cultivating the land since 13 years. In the evidence. it is stated, the applicant and his ancestors were cultivating the land since 1938. Exs.R.53 and R.54 art- the Chalageni chits executed by the applicant's father Subbaiah Achary in favour of Naryana Mulya. Exs.R.53 and R.54 relate to Sy.Nos. 81/5 and 81/6. Subsequently, Subbalah Achary the thther of the applicant has executed chalage[li chit in favour of Venkataramana Bhat on 11.8.1954 as per Ex.R55 which also relates to Sys.No.81 /5 and 81/6. Thereafter, on 5.10.1955 applicant's brother Somalah Achary has executed chalageni chit in favour of Venicararamana Bhat as per Ex.R.56. which relates to Sy.Nos.81/5 and 81/6. There is no mention of Sy.No.75/5 in Exs.R.53. R.54. R.55 and R.56. Therefore. the claim of the applicant that his ancestors were cultivating the land in Sy.No.75/5 is without any basis.
27. In O.S.No.97/58 Venkataramana I3hat has tiled suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties.
24 S Nc 3' S €1IS) ow ul tlic ik in Ih i c Ut 1 21 'IlIr T.ijkitit Shank .ICtnLirai5.I1Ia Uli.tt. SI- •nuc-. ltei In in aI;L)('iflTeLl .1% fl-t'c'fl Ci 1% pfli It\.1{ 2 ilit rtn'i r 1i-. t ii i i It 1til liul a c lit (LS.'.n.9?, 38 Ex.R.2 ititht uIt'% tli;it %5 No., SIT, it' klIat 1)%snsic)li of titi' plauiiill. 1 he pc'rsion i' taken Irum iii" ft "ruits usc I he u nint h ii ( 'xc uk d n r ha i '-j I lit lanck ulu(h veic tenanftc . No ',uc it d t inn' Ii n I (Xt ('tiled Lii it%jn ci 4 No 73. 3 fbt'ii .tlu t Iii'' 1 r - . tz' ' he jx russic)i )I lii Court i ' rd ic-ic iui ta alit 'f tilt atioii i ng I Ic 11 liii 'ii sLtj&k,i' hunt Xiri "ct lilt' iL( I tSltIi i)lil(f'i 'rl% t•'(t ii 111 r,f n.\ , •5,J' r ' otlic 1 utids yin C n C ( . a I as i .;iI . iiLtp-i •jd v •-- S : 1 .' af.l i'- . . ..t . - 10. 1 t,---e--. fl I: • .- ' _i. . ( I I ( , • :fl- f . 'i .1 - I - • --- t a1 - • • -.ft . _ -- --. 25 'fl TiniThil Iflflul j'w If) unit S. X,9, .$ l),*% I 1 Hi JI(IU' inpi nil &%Jl ii lotho 1111(1% t L I lI(tt tic t th --Iiir ol itliutI it 'In;HflvIIi Israncla : --' htnl '" ii; i T li iLl dtc t n t In' I I' ha% been ttkeui I h i ek'n'. it i' I 1f';lr n.thi 1mm 1 )G2 )llWal'd% ul the iwlu'ion )t tI liii let ic pi 'e I r I ' land in S \ .' a 3 in 111' ( nu ' ii h d •';a I !' rc'ei -i app.fluiivn to 'teal 'iih tiit p1 nt flit ' 1 I L'I I. t i-c fl' mciii ix t nt(ntini ha S. lb U a ttnantrd i,tuicl flu cloinn 111% pu'niiiut'd I,. •1. nt 11'I!' : C tc I I V in d i 1 . lilt' Jd Ltflu-nt pr'xlint'd by rt-v.iir:uuJI N(s ' nnw ;h.ut \ a. r Ic ia J I ))a fI fc.a;1.',: ,,, jn. ...,:.L j 1 ..J . !' a. ci ( • ' '1 •jf'' '.:i! : • ...-- . I 4. 4 . •, ' a C ..,,tI..I. A -- I.. .t -- ._. j: - ' '-I. '. ) I ' , I 26 aiht nal on ( oid ni hoaR h a S 3 1 \o i ) ) ni- H it'iitiiit"I land 161'- tFili1 'n A.LAXMINARAYANA ACHARYA vs. LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI & ORS. n polled a 1980 (2) KanLJ I has held th it liolduig ol n iiqciirv is 'i ni'ind ii )V\ 1 in ( ii iTii)uF'il(F1l IS 1110 (1i't'rt'titttt tf lb irhIlill! 1 b I ::IuuiR 'o ft it t oi ha ( dii H d ii p (lion 11 o I Ta I it Sn I in ftai ia 'ft ('onlisel ft r the j mii u i t i ci Ic ft tIn I Fjt fd0t1tifli I 1'-- i at ijoi SSt. S1( It 1101 10 T r' I it ftF 1 1111)1 h in i i tttuIld H nIF-il oil I ciiaflF't H lilt' i('F'ih)i) ol IH 11001)1 Stint era Con I r toIi ft n 1 01 (5 \\ )('ft I ftt 00 J U i n i a F \ fll I CF t 1a t lIt' C (F F [tt I F 'F Ft I FF Ft F 1 I F I Il It I 1 1 I I 1, F I ) F ' F F F F' F 1a' - '-)F14F(, ::Ic' F '' I F F F F 27 h. auctioned. Therefore, there is 110 merit hi the contention and
accordingly, it is rejected.
31. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the matter is remanded and spot inspection is cond ucted the petitioner would show even now lie is in actual possession. Remand cannot be as a mater of course. In view of the clear finding that Sy.No.75/5 was not a tenanred land rema nd Is unnecessary. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. There Is no merit In this writ petition and it is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
JUDGE 1sf-