Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The Hon'ble Single Judge after looking into the records and hearing the learned counsel on both sides had passed the impugned judgment, correctness of which is called in question in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that petitioners did not seek reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, in which event their right to receive compensation would have been adjudicated by the Civil Court in accordance with law. He contended that Hon'ble Single Judge did not notice this aspect of law and therefore, his direction in the impugned judgment directing adjudication of the same before the competent Civil Court is illegal and without jurisdiction. He submitted that entire relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petition is lacking in bonafides, inasmuch as, appellant-respondent No.2 had filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Udupi and after enquiry, learned Tribunal by its order dated 11.10.1976 in LRY-77-1015-TRI- 1289-1976-77 had granted occupancy rights to the appellant in respect of 30 cents of land in Sy.No.137/20A of Shivalli Villge, Udupi Taluk. He submitted that late Sri.Keshava Rao had only purchased by way of Court auction 'mooli right' in respect of 53 cents of land in Sy.No.137/20A of Shivalli Village, among other lands, and appellant had purchased the moolgeni right from the erstwhile moolgeni tenant Krishna Narayana Achari by a registered sale deed dated 19.05.1973 and on the basis of his being a moolgeni tenant, he had filed Form No.7 in respect of said lands. Respondent No.1 having considered the documents like registered deed of partition between Devaki Achari and Krishna Narayana Achari dated 22.02.1973 and various other documents, had satisfied himself that subject land consisted of agricultural properties as well as tiled roof house, had made award in favour of appellant-respondent No.2. He also submitted that petitioners had belatedly challenged the learned Tribunal's order dated 11.10.1976 granting occupancy rights in favour of appellant by filing W.P.No.15600/2011, which was dismissed by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court by order dated 14.12.2011 and thereafter, petitioners preferred W.A.No.18081/2011, which also came to be dismissed on 13.07.2012. He contended that petitioners have suppressed the said information before respondent No.1 as well as before this Court and therefore, Hon'ble Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition. He also submitted that appellant has filed applications seeking permission to produce certain documents obtained by him from the competent authorities, which disclose that tiled roof house purchased by him under sale deed dated 19.05.1973 from Krishna Narayana Achari was renovated by him with RCC roof house and documents show that for the said purpose the appellant had taken licence from the municipal authorities. It is his grievance that Hon'ble Single Judge did not notice all these aspects, more importantly the fact that petitioners have not at all challenged the order of learned Tribunal dated 11.10.1976 for a long time and, thereby, has passed an erroneous order and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. While late G.Keshava Rao had purchased in the Court auction mooli right in respect of various lands including 53 cents in Sy.No.137/20A, the appellant had purchased moolgeni tenancy rights held by Devaki Achari and Krishna Narayana Achari in 30 cents of land in Sy.No.37/20A. The registered partition deed shows that 30 cents of land in Sy.No.137/20A was allotted to the share of Krishna Narayan Achari, which contained the tiled roof house. Subsequently, by a registered sale deed the appellant purchased the said item of land namely, 30 cents of land with tiled roof house in Sy.No.137/20A from Krishna Narayan Achari, which was produced before respondent No.1. It is also disclosed from the records that appellant had filed Form No.7 before the competent learned Tribunal, Udupi seeking occupancy rights in respect of 26½ cents of land in Sy.No.137/20A and learned Tribunal after enquiry passed an order dated 11.10.1976 granting occupancy right in respect of 30 cents of land in the said survey number in favour of appellant.