Karnataka High Court
Venkatasubaraya Upadhyaya vs M Narayana Acharya on 11 December, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE
DATED THIS THE: 1 1?" may OF' 1_>EcEMBERj2d0s§g
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTIC'E»A..S.
WRIT PETITION NO. 328.5/5:égOb9EE[1»:: ;Rj, ..
BETWEEN H:
1 VENKATASUBRAYA UPAD£Vf.YAYA_
SINCE DECEASEIJ-BY LR3 V u '
1(a) NARASIMHAMOORTF{Y
5/ 0 LATE v1a;NKATAs {1}} UPA DHYAYA
MAJoR;~'"~,__.- _
1(b) KUD;§YA"'r;i}évi;AR:"'5?i','i2"'-. K
S/QT LATE V: ;,_NIt4_[FA_SU'BR£\Y_A UPADHYAYA
'
1{c) sivrff. 4s1¥1;\g1\iI<A1;fa1;'asni\/§E:\«':_{\'
W / 0. LATE 'V531?-.1 1xAf1:e.sU BRAYA UPADHYAYA
_MAJOi?. " ' ~
"':.P};T_TI".¥'__IONERS----1-{3} TO (c) ARE
' R"/A KUELAJE IN PERABE: VILLAGE)
" &v..pOS'T1 PUTTUR TALUK
I);'\V§'{=§§PII.I\%A"'KANNADA PE'I'ITIONERS
{BY--SR1 GANAPATHY I-BHAT. ADV.)
"..j~.r\£\m._; H
-- 17$ E H M NARAYANA ACHARAYA
S / O SEETHARAMA AC HARYA
MAJ OR. R/AT MARUVANT}--IILA
.£
K
as
2 (3.)
200}
2(0)
2(6)
2(6)
%2n§:k%
" " 2 nzih} ._
_1\/IAJOIQ. '
PERABE VILLAGE 81 POST
PUTTUR TALUIr{.. {).K
SIDDAPPA BHANDARY
SINCE DECEASIED BY LRS
NONAYYA B HAN DARY
S /0 LAT1: SIDDAJPPA B1--1ANi:3_AR'_a .. 3
MAJOR V
SUNDARA BHANDARYV
s/0 LATE SIDDAPPA BHAi'J.DARY
MAJOR --.
JA.'é\}AKi _T
D/O LATE VSIDDAEPA BH;%$NfDp;'R\}v
MAJOR _: '
VARL_L-"1 'W 1:;A'T§; ANNE Isa/ANLWARY
WHO »
8/ LATF; S-1-';;DDAPI7A' B"r1:AN:>ARY
R/IAJC')1"'\'~_V _
SR1 JANAI{D1«m.NA. __
S /0. LATE ANN; £:HAN:3ARY
-" = _ 2(i}..'[ I'{fi§DP.t£ANAE§}i;";------« *
S70 ANN I BHANDARY
'PI§A'i2*';N;é;"
S/.0 LA'rE ANNI BHANDARY
' MAJOR
JYOT1-H
;I) / O LATE ANNE BI--IAN DARY
" MAJ OR
9E
Glue-r
'v
DJ
RESPONDEN'I.'S 2(a) TO 2m}
ALL R/AT DHARKAST.
PERAIFBEC VILLAGE
& POST, PUTFUR TALUK
OAKSI---IINA KANNADA DIST.
3 SMT. VAGDEJVI AMMA . A ..
W /O RAMAKRISHNA uI3AI)I~IyA\fA I .1
MAJOR. KUPLAJE', IN I--'ERABI?)
VILLAGE & POST '
PUTTUR TALUK, UK
4 THE II LAND TRIBUNAL,-'"'
PUTTUR TALUK; I?U~TTUR . f ~ _
D.K., REPT. BY 'I'I~N;: :.S'I£CR'E:TAI2"I'._ _
5 THE STATE OF C§'OVF;{{NMEI'\£T['
OF KAN,NA'";AKA. 'BY=i ITS s'§,cIizETA..RY
REVEPGUE V
I\/IS. 'BUI;I;OING.» I "
DlTI..AIVI{3EU:§§AR ROAD "
SAN GALfORI:":¢O 3 '
--_ - " RE'~3SPON[)E.'N'I'S
[BY SR1 NONI KUI/IAN, FOR R4 AND 5)
..wRII"PE*I*I"I'ION [S FILED UNDER. ARTICLES 226
':&..227 OF mi; CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Wm--I A PRAYER
L TC) QLJA.s_,I4AI.,"II1II«:--.ORI:)Ia:Rs DATED 23.06.1981 IN LRYT. NO.
IANI') 2648/74-75 AND "I'I---IE ORDER DATED
I9.'6';II979":.Nf.I.I2Y.T.NO. 3943/74-75 PASSEI) BY THE II
LAND TRIB.T5'NAI.. PUTIUR.
'['I'IIS VVRIT PI*ZTITION COMING ON FOR I~'REI,I'I\/EINARY
'~II:"I/III§AJ?IIN'G IN T3' GROUI7'. "THIS DAY. 'I'I~II'3 COURT EVIAIDE 'I'I~-IE3
_ F_OLLOW'II\IG:
I
u-'''''
ORDER
The petitioners are calling in questi()n Ihev-f:*J_'d€I'S dated 23.06.1981. 23.06.1981 and 19.06.1v9_'?i§V"'i§ii?1a.i'c:h are impugned at Annexu1'esMA. B and C'7.to.jijrhe' \}vr.i.i. V' petition. The said orders are Vpaesed -:byV:"i:1oeVvVLant3 Tribunal in case No. _ LRYT, 2648/1974375 and 3943/19'74}75. 'I'I1_e'pet:li,i.o;nVers had it at the outset ca1Ied'f'i._n jtiite "orders in W.P.No.3630/ 1985 (LR].'7"_ of the writ petitiom*'t'1'ieflLa11i%1 Authority was eo1'1st.itiii%teL'ie. said Writ petittion was transfe--r1'ed to Authority and the same was registereciain 1986. Subsequent to the abolflion of Appellate Authority, the petitioner fihlieurein Civil Petition and atieoiflingly, the records ' v"e-frorii the Appellate Authoriiiy and the preseritv.writfpetition is registered. Therefore, at the o11tse.t."A..eve.r1 though the present writ petition "re.xiI1clei.c_:ate'd as a petition of the year 2009, there is no at
-s 3 delay in qL1€S{'.i()l'1l'I"lg the said order siriee the same had been q1.2est:i0ned immediately and the 1'I"1E1H'C'.l'. was p€11dil'}.g in a diffe1'e11t foifum and E.he1'eaf£.er cailedvv_td_:»'1~hvis Court. T
2. Though the said thfee 1'<_'_3r*dere'~.df Tribunal have been ques1:,iOn_e'd.,V at the O{1t$€t,,VV"Wi'I&t'ViS toV V be rioticed is that bythe 0:fc,i--etf"d£ii::<;:d 23".O€~_,.1.9'é~1 as at AnnexurewB. the clairh' '0.f'th.e: was granted in respect. of eight::'1t;ems;:"ef:'the "Among the said eight itefii1s,e. i',he'.pfOhert;y in Sy.N0s.93/ IOC and 93'/1_:2A.V was granted only 75 cents and 59 cents" ifeV$~pee_t:ive1y as against the claim of 85 and'v65 Insofar as the ciaim made to 11 1, the entire' 11 cents was not gra1)i;e€}v.t..0 "tgi,-"ie petitioner under the said order. The said V'-»eXt.ent Q?' 10 cents and 6 cents, which was denied 110 the u"Vi.pet'it:i0I1er in Sy.E\I0s.93/10C and 93/32A respeet.iveI_y .. _,,_v_«fe1s granted in f.';1V()1,Il" of the second respondent: Sri i
-u--'''"
(3 Siddappa Bhandary. It is in that context, the order dated 19.06.1979 in favour of the said Sri S.i.:ii'd4ap;)21 Bhandaiy is questioned to that extent. _ property meastiring 1} cents in§y.No.{i4'/"1.:'_~th'c. vsanze "' was ranted in favour of the first re's'3--ondent¥'Nara<--raii.a . ,_ r . _ p J.' V Acharya under a different "=ozrder"~ Therefore to the said e_Xtent., ordei*s,Va1'e_:§5alled in question.
3. __.The_ ti_or:ter1fti_o"n.._0f'1i--he_Jearned Counsel for the petiti'oner{isdi':t.hat"'inV"'t.hed No.7' as filed by the petitioner,' ._t:he.petitio'ner-..has made claim in respect of the eiitiredexteritp ';ofA*the° land as indicated in the said . and 93/12A. It is further 'vt'ti«at§_j..in Form No.7, which was filed by the respondent[s,No. 1 and 2 respectively. the said survey 9"-w__V'-»numbe;fs:'were not indicated. it is therefore. contended T "that_AAeven though the petitioner had made claim and also produced Chatageni receipt. to establish his i an 7 tenancy and fL1l'i'.hf;',I' despite the landlord having consented to the grant of the O(.'.('.Llp€1IlCy rights. the entire extent. was not granted and therefore;'to'-«,tia.at extent. the 'l'rib1,1nal was not _}ttst.ified. I-ti. contended that when the elainrinrespeet' Ru Items of the property was not the.
No. 1 and 2 in their Forrn the same have it been granted to t.hem;, 'i'hi.s.Veont'ention"ofthei learned Counsel for the petitio11lesrs'i,s_V the Copy of the Form No.7,_:Wh1el1:"has' along with the writ peitition, other aspect. which also nlotieeld is that when the petitioner had ,t¢a1i..=5aa i_ri».l_01ues_t,it.:11 the grant of the said items of land in tat/maul' of _re.spondents No. 1 and 2 respectively before Covzgrt. and when the matter had been transferred to Reforms Appellate Aut.hori.ty and in the V. .,pe-nding proceedings, the respondents No. I and 2 had t '5 8 filed applications in i.A.Nos. 2 and 3 1'espeei.ive1y to seek amendment of the Form No.7 to incorporate the said particular survey niimber to \.vhich respiiridenfzs_"No*..._ 1 and 2 had not made Claim. lnsogfar as ~ was filed by Sri Narayana Aehaijya, _--the" RV' dismissed by the Appellate Al1t:h0l"it:4\fi.'A":V l.}i.._N'(>.;--3 Sri Siddappa Baharidary \xrLish"~ail1(>\VedV. V the " ll rejection of I .A.No.2, Sr1Ay.....l§'areiy_ar1a.' "Arr_harya had questioned the order dated before this Court in LRRP No.19ii'2__/li9:9O1;..:1gggi»nVsiV-thelxl.A.No.3 being allowed"by"t.h':c: the petitioner herein had qnzesiionled. LRRP No.2487/1990. The learned Cotui1VSel.f-orpetitioners would state before "V"«.t.he~i.j$Couri:---Apthaiilthev revision petition filed by the i_pei:itVi'onVer wéiedllowed while the revision petition filed by Nai?.giye1iie.h_A3eha1ry2i had been dismissed by this Court. resiiltarit. effect of the proceedings in the said petitions would be that the fact that _,:fesponde.r1ts No. 1 and 2 had not made claim in respect é run» It 9 of the said extent in the said survey numbers wotild stand established and their attempt to amenciment. to Form No.7 and iiicorporate the same had 1_1e.t"~be.eii accepted by this Court. Therefore, the ~ would be that the Form No.7 as filedhy in ll respect of the entire extent, in"=tl1e'_'_'sétid"~three numbers would have to b'e._c0,nsidei'edVi:1;itS._:'e*r1»tifety, " V while the Form No.7 filed and 2 would have to be takeh in which they had filed Form i';:1etance since the a_lIoxt7le(l:l. Therefore, the claim put fo:rthVby the.'1'est§o;*:iei'e.r:"ts No.1 and 2 in respect of Sy.No--s, 44/1 and 93/12A respectively, "-moi;1'lcl riot éirise for consideratiori by the 'l"r1'b'u nal.
" l'_f7AV.these aspects of the matter are kept in vieiv%?l;'llt.hel.o"€cieti* dated 19.06.1979 passed by the II Land l'._Tribun;1ll;';. Puttur, granting the extent of the property in l '«§fs3;.lN¢_.s.93/ioc (93 10F') and 93/12A {93wl2APl) and t »*'b I':
6. Though in a normal Ci1'c:L1mst:a11ee;,:"sinee these aspects of the matter is clear, this _.AC-ou_rt:' ' have incorporated that portion i.n~~the o1:'tler1"ofIrt.}1le .I'gar1"cl V Tribunal, considering the fact tlriat the res;'}vor-1cvle11'iis'«.are.
served and un--represer1te£:i,--.,_vLl"-cleern it the"
matter only insofaras to the Land Tribunal to herein and thereafter e0'nsieler 'koeltitioners to the said In this regard, the the ease in LRYT Nos.65"s3}'f1 97445 and 3943/ 1974-75 on record a'nclV'con-siderlthe matter only to the extent as :,.Aabo'v.e all other respects, the Tribunal shall' with the earlier orders. The Tribunal shall eorisidei' and dispose of the matter as ' "'»e;<peditvi.o:usly as possible. t p-
o I 3 In terms c)fthe above. the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. hrp/bms