Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Narayan Hanamanth Murali vs Land Tribunal on 24 July, 1986 cites

Narasing Gopalrao Desai vs The Land Tribunal, Khanapur And Ors. on 25 August, 1983

7. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 15 was a Special provision conferring special jurisdiction on the Tahsildar and therefore he was not obliged to keep the proceedings pending, particularly for the reason that by the force of Section 44 of the Act itself the land covered by Section 5 of the Act were excluded. He also submitted that in view of Sub-section (6) of Section 15 which provides that it is only after the Tahsildar makes declaration that the land is no longer covered by Section 5 of the Act, the land gets vested in the State and comes within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The contention urged for the appellant is coverd by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Narasing Gopala Rao v. Land Tribunal, 1984(1) KLJ 384 in which the earlier mentioned two decisions were over-ruled. Paras 9 to 11 of the Judgment furnishes complete answer to the contention urged by the appellant. The ratio of the Judgment is that as the Tahsildar has Jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15 in respect of the application made by a soldier it is the Tribunal which is required to keep the matter pending when an application for resumption was pending before the Tahsildar. In view of this decision the two decisions of the learned Single Judge referred to earlier is no longer good law. Therefore, the contention that the Special Tahsildar could not have made the order during the pendency of the application of respondent-4 before the Land Tribunal is untenable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - K J Shetty - Full Document
1