Karnataka High Court
Sri G S Subbaramaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.24569 OF 2022(LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.S. SUBBARAMAIAH,
S/O LATE N SHAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT 902 28TH MAIN,
JAYANAGARA 9TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU 560 069.
2. SMT. K V BHAGYALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
3. SRI. G N PRASANNA KUMAR,
S/O LATE NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4. SMT. N SUMA,
D/O LATE NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
5. SRI. G N RAGHAVENDRA,
S/O LATE NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT S R ROAD,
V V LAYOUT, HOSKOTE TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 114.
NOTE: PETITIONER 1 & 2 SENIOR CITIZEN
BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
HOSKOTE 562 114.
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
3. SRI. CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA
4. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
D/O CHANNABASAPPA
5. SRI. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O CHANNABASAPPA
6. SMT. USHARANI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
D/O CHANNABASAPPA
7. SRI. MAHESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
NO.3 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT
BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU 560 049.
8. SRI. SURENDRA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDALINGAMMA
3
9. SRI. AUMESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDALINGAMMA
NO.8 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT
CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
10. SMT. YASHODAMMA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
W/O LATE B R BASAVARAJU
11. SRI. SATISH B
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE B R BASAVARAJU
12. SRI. PRASHANTH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O LATE B R BASAVARAJU
13. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O B R BASAVARAJU
14. SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O LATE B R BASAVARAJU
NO.10 TO 14 ARE RESIDING AT
BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU 560 049.
15. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O LATE RUDRAPPA,
16. SMT. PREETHI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
D/O CHANDRASHEKAR
4
17. SRI. PRUTHVIK
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O CHANDRASHEKAR
NO.15 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT
NO 1105, 1ST CROSS, KEERTHI LAYOUT,
CHANDAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU 560 099.
18. SMT. BHARATHI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O LATE SHASHIKUMAR
D/O LATE SIDDALINGAMMA
19. SRI. RAKESH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHASHIKUMAR,
NO.18 AND 19 ARE RESIDING AT
BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU 560 049.
NOTE: PEITIONER NO.1 TO 5 ARE LRS OF
LATE N SHAMANNA AND RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 19
ARE LRS OF LATE RUDRAPPA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN LRF(B) BH1/299/74-75
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT LAND
TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXUER-E AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE SAME.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
5
ORDER
Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in LRF(B) BH1/299/74-75under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, whereby occupancy has been claimed in Form No.7 in respect of the subject land. Learned counsel for the Petitioners argues that the said claim having been abandoned and even otherwise the claimant having died, no LRs having been brought up in his stead, the matter should be treated as having been abated by operation of law.
2. Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents opposes the Petition contending that merely because death of the claimant occurs it is not that the matter would abate on its own in the absence of communication to the contrary in law. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petitioner papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, it is not sure whether the proceedings arising under an agrarian reforms law would abate since no such decision to the contrary is notified to the Court.
4. That apart, the Tribunal also cannot keep the matter pending for eternity, speedy justice being a facet under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Whether the claimant leads evidence or not, would have little evidencing factors on the file, based on that the Tribunal has to undertake the exercise of adjudication in accordance with law.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off directing the 2nd Respondent-Tribunal or the other jurisdictional Tribunal to hear & dispose off the pending occupancy claim within a period of six months. 7
All contentions are kept open, costs having been made easy.
Registry shall send a copy of this judgment to the private Respondents by speed post immediately .
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv