Karnataka High Court
Sushilabai vs The Land Tribunal Bijapur Rep By Its ... on 17 September, 2010
Bench: N.Kumar, Subhash B Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BE NCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 17% DAY OF SEPTEMBER % 0 S PRESENT . : THE HON BLE MRWJU STICE N KUM: iM. ak _ AND | THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE @ SUBHASH , ADI WRIT APPE. AL NOLL 1786. OF 2006 (L R) A/W_MISC.W.NOS. $0634." rc 80636 /09. 80638 TO 80640 /09, 80040) * LO. 800: 4 /10,-S0050/10 TO BETWEEN: i. SMT.SUSHILABAL, SINCE DEAD BY LRS HAL SMT. GIRMIABAI W/O SHANKARPRAO DESHPANDE AGE: 56 YEARS, GCC: AGRICULTURE R/ONEAR BADI KAMAN JUMMA MASJID ROAD, BIJAPUR UCB) 3M r SULOCHANA W/O SS RARG Ox JAHAGIRDAR "AGED 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/OS si HIRABU ROINAM, PADNUOR POST, INDI TALUK, BIJAPUR DIST. 1(C) SMT, RADHABALI W/O RAJIENDEA DESHPAN DIC AC GE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BAI SERAMN ROAD, NEAI JUMMA MASJID, HiJAPUIS Ly SRELGURURS tae 5/O RAJENDRA DESHPANDIE AGI: 5 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP THROUGH HES NEATP FIREHENTS NATURAL MOTHER RADHABAI W/O RAJENDRA DESHPANDE R/O BIJAPUR LTE) SMT. BHAVANI D/O RAJENDRA DESHPANDE ... AGE: 10 YEARS, SINCE MINOR. -- REP BY HER NEXT FRIEND a NATURAL MOTHER RADHABAL W/O RAJENDRA DESHP ANDE, R/O BIJAPUR. (BY SRLPRAKASH R.KUL KARI HAV AND: 4 cat . LAE LAND. TRIBUNAL BIJAPUR, RE P BYITSC SHAURMA} N SRE. SAGARAPPA . S/O NEELAPPA HALLIOL AGE: 65 YE ARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O KARJOL: Ble Vy APU ia SREBE HMAPPA | . S fF NE SL APPA HALLIOL -- AGIS 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. KARJOI, _ BIJAL OLR rh wey : SRLVITHAL, SINCE DEAD BY LR ACA) SMT.YALLAWWA W/O VITHAL HALIJOL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O KARJOL, BIJAPUR APPELLANTS Cad AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KARJOL, BIJAPLIR 6. SRLHUCHCHAPPA 3/O NEELAPPA HALEIOL AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KARJOL, BIJAPUR ORL BASAPPA, S/O SURAPPA HALIIOL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KARJOL, BIJAPUR a ~ 8. SRLRAMAPPA. S/O SURAPPA-HALIJOL~ AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O KARJOL, BIJAPL RO Oo. SRLGURAPPA, S/O SU RAPPA HAD ICL: AGE: 34 YEARS, OC': » AGRI Cu ibs ae RE. R/O KARJOL? BMAP UR RESPONDENTS (SRES.S. KUMMAN, COVE. "ADS , I ORR SRE. SHIN' ASH LANES WAR H. MAN u R, ADV. FOR R2, R5 AND RG} This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act praying to.se' aside the order passed by the Single « Judge 3 in WP No.2722/99 dated 25.11.2005. a hise Ww, 8063472009 is filed for setting aside abater ment oF, I. RS, of deceased R2. Wise. W80635/ 2009 is filed for bringing LRs. of deceased Re on record. Misc W.S0636/2009 is filed for condonation of de iay in Ming the LR application of deceased R2. "Misc. W.80638/2009 is iiled for setting aside . abatement of LRs. of deceased R23. Le Mise. W.80639/2009 is filed for bringing the LRs. of deceased R&, , Mise. W.80640/2009 is filed for condonation, 'ot delay in filing LR. application of deceased Roy Fa Mise. W.80040/2010 is filed. for: -condonation of delay in filing the LR applic: ition of dece Ase ed Ryo. Misc. W.80041/2010 -is filed >for sciting caside'. abatement of LRs. of deceased.R7 Mise. W.S80042/2010 ise 6 iled for bringing LRs. of deceased RY on record." ne Misc. W. 80043/2010- is. filed for bringing LRs. of deceased RO on. recor: A . ~ Mise 4W.80050/2010 is filed" for condonation of delay in i ling' IR applic ation of de ceased R&S, Mise. W.e 2008 1; opiG is filled for setting aside abatement ofl Rs. of RE. : Misc. Ww, 80052; (2610 is filed for bringing LRs. of deceased RS On record. Be This appeal a/w. Mise.Ws., coming on for further "OL des rs todey, MEN "KUMAR, J. delivered the following: JUDGMENT
by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the writ petition challenging the order of the learned Single . wudge who, after setting aside the order of the Land Rerorms Tribunal, Bijapur on the ground that it is not a 7 Bey in, speaking order, has granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners in the writ petition.
The subject matter of this proceeding. is the iarrd 7 bearing Sv.No.5/1/AtB measuring 8° aercs 18. gunta's situated at Karjol Village of Bijapui Taluk. | 'The writ petitioners Hed F orm No.7 seeking grant of eceu pancy rights under the provisions. of ihe band Reforms Act. By an order datea 23.10.1981, the seetipaney rights were granted. -- The respondent Nos.2 2 to 5 in the writ petition preferred. NM Zp 'Nos.3 3208: 3321) 1/1981 challenging the said ade: belbre this Court The writ petitions were allowed." The order: of th Land Reforms Tribunal was set aside, matter Was, remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh . consideration. After enquiry, again the Tribunal by its 'order daied6.3.1987 granted occupancy rights. Again the said order was challenged before this Court in WP N 0.22084/ 196]. This Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal and again remanded the matter back io the Tribunal. Alter secon cl remand, the Frootsto™ Crs.
members of the Tribunal inspected the spot on 17.8.1998 and this time they rejected Form No.7 by a majority decision, by order dated 56.1. 1999. That "order . was, challenged by the writ petitioners before the learned ; Single Judge. The learned Single J idge was of th o view that, the order passed by che Land ; Reforms "Peibu nal is not a well considered order and not. a speaking order arid therefore, held that the said order is Hable to be quashed. However. after quashing tic, order of.the Land Reforms Tribunal, he proceeded. to confirm the occupancy rights which Had "not been, -grarited in favour of the writ petitioners. . Therciore. "aggrieved by the same, the respondents tiave fired this writ appeal.
r
3.Ne have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. -
4. On twe occasions, when the Land Reforms "Tribunal granted occupancy rights, this Court set aside the order and remanded the imiatier back for fresn ee a consideration, Third time, Form No.7 was dismissed. [f the order dismissing Form No.7 is erroneous and, as described by the learned Single Judge as not a speakin a order, he is fully justified in setting aside he said order ; and he ought to have remanded the matier back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.» "Phe order of the :
learned Single Judge confirming the occupancy rights alter setting aside the order of the Land Reforms 'Tribunal which had rejected Form No. 7. is 'illegal and cannot be sustained: | (his appropriate to: set aside the order of the learned : Sirigle "gadge™ in So far as confirming the occu pancy i ights. m, favour of the writ petitioners is concerned anid remané the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance wi th law. 5, Triring the pendency of this proceeding, before and - after filing of this appeal, some of the parties are | dead. Applications are fled to bring the legal 'represeritatives on record. Since the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of granting occupancy rights is Canes concerned being ilegal, we find it appropriate 16 send the LR applications to the Tribunal tisell. Acco -dinglys we transmit all the L.R. applications to the Land R forms:
Tribunal so that after notice to all the parties in Pr orm No.7 as well as in the applications, the 'Tribunal shall proceed with the matter bearitig in mind thie observations. made by the learned Single Jnidge, consider the ease on merits and pass appropriate 'orders. That would meet the ends of justice.
G, Accordingly, we pass th e followin g ORDER { i) oe Ww vit a b peal . is all owed. OD, Impugned order passed by the learned Singie a udge confirming the grant of occupancy . ; 'rights is hereby set aside. ai) The entire matter is remiu ed back to the Land Reforms Tribunal, Bijapur afler notice to all the parties concerned including the legal meprereoition oP ee oe representatives to the deceased parties.
i Lee 9 Consequently, Mise. W.Nos. 80634 to 80638/ Og, 80638/09 to 80640/09, 80040 te 80043 / 10, S005 P/ 20 and S0052/10 are disposed of.
Parties to bear their own cosis:
RY