Smt Edilburgh M A Rebello W/O Alexis ... vs State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Edilburgh M A Rebello W/O Alexis ... vs State Of Karnataka on 13 December, 2010

Author: N.Kumar

Bench: N.Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DA'I'EI) THIS THE) 13*"! DAY 0;? DECEMBER, 20VI.G.._""I._

PRES EN'?

THE IIONBLE MR. JUSTICE) N KUMAII' .  ' 

AND   -

THE HONBLE MR. JUsTIcE'».ARALI INAQARAJ'  V.' I' I A
w.A I\Io.245I/201.9 {I<I;I"<._--_ RES}   "

BETWEEN  ~

1.

Sn1t.Edi1burgh M A..RebeiA!Io--,-- ,  
W/0.A1exis Jacob' Rébello, "
Since deceased by  "
Smt.Haze1_R t:be110:;' I
W/0.Adr'5I'arI".Rc'beHO, 2: =

Aged gbdI1t {$.8Jye'aIf:3_._  . 
R / a.Ka_sayiI_2an1EII1e \rI'l1age...I* :
J a g.a.1fa"HI)"b1i-1,;,QhikfI3.ag;a'1L11j Tq;
CVhiknIagI{a_1VuI' I7j)is1;_1"i'e.§,' 
 G. F" A H:'iidé1',_  _ '
S1.*iuKevin I/I'au{Ie.:a.~:..._  ¢

Major, KesaV'in2;InaIie..

Viilagtf; -Jé'1g,a_1"V:--1 H~.'._)b1i§'

"  Ch~ikmaga!1_gIr Taluk,
-. _ °'C§1.i_kI11agal111"DI3i'riCt,.

   Rebello,

II);'(5';Ha;ié1l"Rebello.

 Aged':§t_b(I:1It 41 years.
 --. Rf :1] K€.'TSE1Vil'}.aI11aI1C Village.

Ilagfarai Hobli, Chikmagalur Tq.,
Chikrxlagalur District by

AA ~._GPA Holder. Sri Kevin Maihias,

 Major, r/aﬁesavina Mane

Viliage, Jagara Hobli,
Chik1I1aIgga1ur Tq,
Chikn'Iaga1uI' District.

kt/,



3. Aylmer Rebelio,

S /0 . Hazyei Relaeiio.
Aged about 36 years.
R/a.KesaVinama11e village,
Chikrnagaiur Taiuk,
Chikmagaiur Districi.,
By G P A Holder.

Sri Kevin Mathaias.
Major, Kesavirianiane
Village, Jagara Hobii,
Chikmagalur Tq,

Chikmagakur District. V   .. 

[By Sri B M Krishna Bhat, Adyﬁ 
AND:

1. State ofKarr1aiaka,   _ 
By Secretary 1:0 G-0veV'rr_1vmeni,,_ .V " 
Revenue Departmezfit, '' _ _  ' 
M s     ~   
D1-.Ambe~dKa1'iRQad',   " ..  V. V .
BangaiO1*eg56_0 00]». '  '

2. 'I'he'A17)eputy 'C_(.)'I'1'":.Id;1'"ﬂ i's's:igf)"nei*,
Chi.kni'aga1u1' 1")_istriCi:, 
Ch_ikmaga1g,11'; ..   ' .. Respondents

 "(By 5:413 i3V.V'isi1wa1iaiii;'A}V\GA)

H H K i' 4.4' '  ih foilowing:

 * ﬂiﬁed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
C("):1sti_1,uti'on"_*V.0__f'frrdia, praying to set; aside the order dated
I8.3',2__01O in "w;>iNo.4195/2006.

Th~~.is""W;A eoniing on for orders this day. KUMAR J



JUDGMENT

M115 appegal is preferred challenging the order the learned Single «Judge. who has upheld the Karnataka Appellate Tribtmal [for short _ turn upheld the order of the Deputy..Cpoi11111_i'ssionle:r the application of the appell.a:at land to the State. V 'V V l l V l

2. The subject matter of is Bithe land bearing Sy.l\lo.4O 29 guntas of Kesavinamane Village, ﬁnd District. The records'ii";vtiltej.case::,3:liscl.osel land originally belonged to one:__l*'ra:aclsl'5Ar1tony"(iyril Rebellow [F.A.C Rebellow). He executed 1923 bequeathing his property.

He died is§'su¢ less.-__ The'«ht1sband of the 151 appellant claims to l.egatee~L1_nder said will. F A C Rebellow during h1s"liIe"'tinie,_gaVe away the said land to the Government The said fact is found in File No.20/875 of the Deputy Commissioner in. The said }3r*ope'rty was already included in the sehedule»»B as waste land bearing Sy.No.-40, which shows that the testatoik perceived the property as worthless. After his death. his will was probaied. His nephew li)r.All"1'ed Camille I{ebeli!ri"»wa1s appointed as the executor. There were litigat,i.enS_p' , decree Came to be passed.

3. lt. is the case of the ap_pellants t'.h_-atzthel 1~'-it appellant. inherited the said-l_and.V'whiCh ouVer:"' , to the government of Mysoite'vi..._lfor_u11on#-payrheniti of land revenue. it is not in of the IS' appellant during' his application for restoration of l{'l;l'A§°,,L-.l311(:;l.'. dyear 1979. It is t.hereaft'er~ it 'El3".~3~'":Vl'°" appellant filed an applioa.tion'_ land after 54 years. The land either «s}1i*reii0l_ered" government under rajinama or forfeited'to the goveriinient as contended by the appellants. V _ '.V'l'.U:Ii.'Vtll€I' case of the 18" appellant that on the day shefiled air'; .:i'pplic:atio1i, she continued in possession of the land View of sub-Rule 2 of Rule "119 of the Rules, she Awash entitled for restoration. There were litigations between A't_he"parties. in the first round. the Deputy Commissioner (3 case for restoration. it is against. that order. the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court. Lea11'11edf¥.'.S'i»1igle Judge on Careful consideration of the entire. oi; record. found that there was no error coIfonii.:{t.erl:_i"hy the _ '' Tribunal and no interfere was called for and "the. writ petition. It is against that or__de'r.,_ the.'a_ppell'ani.'uh.asg preferred this appeal.

5. Sri Krishna Bhat:¢,._"':;.z3ar-.:r:1ed.o'o:_§i1sel_t'or thelappeiiants urged several grounds', that in a proceeding ur_iVder§,E'.l'ule::-1 Rduiestx'thelauthority cannot go into the tq'u-estjipondllicbff"title; "---S'ecoi"1dly';vhe contended that under a will the" was bequeathed in favour of the hushand of it the;_ it?-l. Eiappellaiit and therefore after his deiath. she bec'am_e____the owner and the material on record » sh0_ws..that«.she__coiit:inued to be in possession of the land and H 'éhhsifetoreligmdevrlvisL1b~Rule {2} of Rule 119 of the Rules. she is erltitledvpto"rest.oration of the land. The Authorities have not 'p:*operljr appreciated the law on the point. decisions rendered °various courts and committed serious illegality in l ' *"rejeetingthe appiication.

Aeco1'ding to her. the name of the death person continues in

6. We do not see the merit in the Contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. Rule 119'ot'.the Rules prescribes the period of three years fo1'l'eiture. Adm.itt.ed1y._ the applieatioii is K time. The date of forfeiture is not with regard to either fo1'feit.ure or lstirreilidei'lboifcland rajinama. The husband of the"'~letappellant'clairns toﬂbe the 1 owner of the land having.__l}nder' Vthe"VV\V2'vill. This fact should be estab11shed...it '_w__Assurning the land was l'o1'feii:e:d'p:-.as he should have filed an ton~:1fest:oration_.before his death. In otherWords_.the date___of_h_is death. he had lost his right for forl;eit_ui'e. a"pplic'at.ion was filed on 25.11.1992 taking the ameiidment by introduction of sub- 1 Ruled' (231 of Rule i"i9"or Rules. The said Rule provides for rr:storati.oriv "the case of possession of land. which is lo:f_leited.. eopntlinties with the applicant. Admittiedly, there is no re'-1j*ei'1u.e records to show that the 1" appellant was in possession of the land as on the date of application is filed.

1. possession of t.he land. that does not help her at any extent. I I""lOVVCV(i1'. subARl1le {2} of Rule 119 of the Rules no applieatioii. 111 the facts and C'.i]'CL1i1lS'EE111C§3S,."'1:h€'::'1'"? appellant. hais not shown neither t:it.le nor p()ssessir51'i Cf {lie property. Therefore. she is not entitled' lg)Fres;to.réitien§'~The Deputy Commissioner as well 'I",ril:)ti»:nal. learned Single Judge have giveiilibertjy its t;he'v_:aVf';ie'llar'it:s toll' approach the Civil C0171t°I;,zi"0r il(ll)'R,_0l' title;-..Aee0rdir1g to the appellams, such v=.i:Iit;hV0ut jurisdiction. At: any rate. tliis:i's.__z_10t. 'of land, which is surrendered" r'estdi'e1t,i0n of land, which is forfeiteld_Aie*ji;heV_ ldlence, t.he appellants have no right and the application is not 1'1ia1nt'.aiI1able.... We'do'-1-iét see any justification to interfere with' the 'Cycle? by the Authorities. N0 merit. the_'_.appeal is dismissed.

Sd/W HEDGE 5 Sit' "' :USGE 'V Bkiii.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court