IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAI.OR£:I
DATED THIS THE 18"' DAY OF NOVEMBER ZOQQV
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. PD. DENAKARAN, CI-E1112}? _ D
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUTsT1cEV'v.(§;sABHA1+:1f1'~ '~ T .
wnrr APPEAL Nov3.§§9»4/2ob9:LR;.T
BETWEEN:
1 KRISHNAPPA P00JAI~2Y., *
S /0 KARTHA POOJARY
AGED 76 YRS .
R/0.sHA_L.E.1y1ANE :
H1REBAI§D.E13A1:1.F--QS';'' _' "
AND '
PU'l'1UR. -Djii. » _ APELLANITS}
{By Sn;/sm':':-- Sjvfyxsréfwg. SHETTY)
AND: V T' 'H V T
1 THE C'QMI)Ei'EN*1?.Vc5EEiCER
. 'AND THESPL LAO'
~.i_sARAPPAD'1;-~ . _____ H .
HYQRU. ELECTRICAL PROJECT
E MrwGAI:0RE
' S/O.MAI?fHAVA GOWDA. MAJOR
HIREBANDADAD1 POST
AND VILLAGE
PU..:"TUR, D.K. RESPONDEN'.l."[S}
"(.1.33}?«' sh/Sm: : B.vEERAPPA. AGA FOR R4}
*=£¢=i<*5i<a'==i==§Hé=
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF ms KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYENG TO SET As1OE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PE'i'iTIOE\E NO.327'}.4/2003 DATED 05/O2/:zO'O9§--Vt..'
THIS WRIT APPEAL COIVEENG ON FOR M
HEARING ON THIS DAY. L)E'L'1vtE;i2E"O
FOLLOVVENGI -- T
JUDGMENIO
This appeai is in
uLP£hx32714/2003.§angsé§fleQ#ibythetm&m-dmed
5/2/2009 xmmjekr the ggafifxi geese Judge has
deciined tofl passed by the
Karna'.:_s1tst ihereinafter referred to as
'TQNTfi rdguxi2e}s/sees En Appeai3kx775/2002 and
dismissing the petition.
V 2".-.:_f"h'e::§1p.pe}1ant herein filed W.P.NO.32714/2003
cOr1_tendi_1j1'ge: 'ii;h}:.21t the petitioner is in peaceful possession
'erljoyment of the Land bearing Sy.NO.14O/I
V"i:"me;isAuring 1.04 Acres. Sy.NO.140/7 measuring 1.07
WA€:res and Sy.NO.1-40/8 measuring 0.44 Cents, situated
at Hirebandadi viiiage Of Puttur Taluk. He has been
cultivating the said land as a tenant. After coming into
force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for sphortdthe
'Act'), he made an application under F
Conferrnent of occupancy right
Sy.No.140/1 and sy.No.14o/7,
Tribunal and conferred occupancy right the r L'
petitioner and the sarne has.:vb'e.corne Vpfiiowever,
the petitioner V in respect of
Sy.No.140/8 'V he was
cultivating for more than
40 yeardsfv amendment of the
Karnataka by answering Section
77--A_ of theufict,' theipedtitioner fiied Form No.7 claiming
,,rightfV""for grant of Land in respect of
i.f4'Qv/'éf-eneasuring 0.44 cents. The said
applicatvionidwias fiied on 15/ 12/ 1998. However, the said
Vdppoppylicdation was rejected by the competent authority i.e.,
respondent by an order dated 4/9/2001 and
being aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed
WI-7.35506/2001 before this Court and thereafter, the
‘\._.J’*
matter was transferred to KAT since appeal was
provided against the order passed on an applicaltiion
filed under Section 77-A of the Act. and
appeal, there is an order of status-qiio””durii’1Vg”_tlrvel
pendency of the appeal. The
dismissed the appeal by in1’pu,§:gr1ed..d-ated
26/2/2003 and being aggr.iei\ked”‘.._}oy the
appellant herein filed for quashing
of the order’ pas_sed and the
Tribunal, petitioner could not
file ap«rp1i¢aeé;n occupancy right in
respec§£:L,;,i:ll 773A of the Act gave
him right” to file a:r1_ha.pplicat.ion and petitioner had
. it”proved3–.’that._he Waslla tenant of the said land as on
“hu.tr.~he could not file an application for
conferrr_1ent) of occupancy right before the 15′-
R””‘–._V:”‘resp0nd.e:nt and the KAT ought to have allowed the
applieation filed by the petitioner and the learned Single
-Judge was not justified in confirming the finding of the
V Tribunal and confirming the order passed by the lei
.\/,9?
respondent and therefore sought for quashing of the
order passed by the Tribunal.
3. Learned Single Judge by an _
5/2/2009 after hearing the learned couriseliiappearirigé ‘*
for the petitioner, the learned G.ovt:;”‘P.l’ea’d.er.
for respondent No.1 and the “learned counsvelliwgngpeagring
for respondent No.2 held that/the’petitioner failed
to make an application. _ for grant of
occupancy rightin that he was
in possession”ofi0AIft}:i’e larid tenant and made an
application’for”‘co’ni’errrierit..o’f occupancy right in respect
of Sy.No.l”-7-l_0/pl and’.:140_'[*~8 even though Sy.No.140/8 is
adjaeent’to the-“s-aid___land and the petitioner had failed to
»pro*.re that was a tenant of the land as on 1/ 3 / 1974
declined to interfere with the impugned
order “dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved
2′ the order of dismissal dated 5/2/2009 petitioner
preferred this appeal.
\./”J
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and the learned Govt. Advocate
appearing for respondent No. 1.
5. Learned counsel appearing for
submitted that the appellate if?’ it
respondent have proceeded on the basis’t.hat”‘sinc’e.n1o:
application was filed for corhfe-rrnentv-oi’ right 2 L’
in respect of Section 4l_8–A of ll’-“o’r:ar1_AAl\lHol’7 could
not be filed by the the very object
of Section 77–A_:of_.the{Act’is to ‘e:n_abVl~e ~:a’tenant who has
failed to in Form No.7 for grant of
occupanc’y4_rightl.” _ it
6.011 other hand, learned Govt. Adv.
“for the respondent No.1 submitted that the
respondent. No.1 and the Appellate
V .V Triblunavlplhaire held that petitioner has failed to prove
it a tenant as on 1/3/1974 and therefore, the
— of the learned Single Judge is justified.
‘\..,i’>
7. We have given careful consideration to. the
contentions of the learned counsel appearingvpforthe
appellant and the learned Govt. Advocate
the respondent No.1 and scrutinized
record in the light of the decision
learned counsel for the app’-élll’ant. r l
8. The scrutiny’ of would
show that the petition’e.r”c_laln1spthe tenant of three
lands in Sy;N\o.1él0/’:l– if 1.04 Acres,
Sy.No. 140g ijA¢l~;§ssi’lland Sy.No. 140/8
I measnring”G214fienigpsl,’-sit1.1ated at Hirebandadi Village of
Puttur ‘1’alt1l< and right has been conferred
underll Section "-="l8__of the Act, as the same has become
final, the petitioner failed to file an application
lFor'rri respect of the land in Sy.No.l40/8
Q rnealsuring 40 cents and after coming into force under
Selction)/7~A of the Act, application was filed in Form
' It is clear from the material on record that he
entries in the R.O.R. do not support the contention of
the petitioner that he is a tenant of the land in
'\.,w,/''*
Sy.No.14~O/8 also measuring 44 cents and the
petitioner has not lead any evidence to substantiatehhis
contention that he was cultivating the .
tenant along with the other 2 lands in" "' 2
and 140/ 7 and the competent
that in the absence of ariy"'-material thef'
applicant to show that he W§i.S.h:"JhE.€3IiE;AI1J[ of" lahd as on
1 / 3/ 1974-, grant of of the Act
does not arise.' has also
Observed not produced
any myatelrilali a tenant of the land in
Sy.No.vl4ill;-' the said concurrent finding,
whichis based' upoh the material on record, it is clear
. . ,._thé1't learned 'Single Judge was justified in deelining
the impugned order as the impugned
order suffer from any error or illegality as to
" hcall forvinterferenee in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of
l' . 't_hi,=3~Court.
9. Accordingly, we hoid that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge is justified and does not suffer
K2′
from any error or illegality as to Cali for interference in
this mtraucourt appeal. Accordingly, this writ appeal IS
dismissed.
Sd; e
Chiefsfustica j
Index: Yes / N0
Web H7bs£§T’y*e§f,/’N5 N
*H1Vs