Neme Gowda Since Dead By Lrs vs State Of Karnataka Dept Of Revenue on 18 June, 2008

'V '' {By    , Adv. for petitioner.)

   1.  "1'he'---Stafb of Karnataka,

  ~  The Authorised Omccr and

IN THE men courrr OF KARNATAKA AT 
Dated this the 18*" tiay ofJUNE , 2e%<§8' ' .1';-i   
BEFORE   jj . A 7f %A T  "
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE B;;.éi2E'ENIVA$--GO§{DL§V 

WRIT PETITION 2sIo_.4_26'749§_:)' zzoosfygfi) "   V'

Between:

Name Gowda      
SINCE DECEASED BY H1S._L.~R.q_ R    %
W/9. Name:  _ .       
Aged about  A      A
R/0.MalfigeMaja12;1, ' . v. .,  
Subra1n;3¢r1ya?e.i1d"'post, A "  V  V
Sulliataiuk,       . %
D.K.I)ist."   '

.. PETITIONER

A§iid'     

 II)épt.ji- of Revenue,
., " VT%M.S}B1dg.,
=I3;a1:1ga1ore -«I,
Rep. By its Secmtary and
Assistant Commissioner.

The Assistant Commissioner,
Land Tribunal,

Sullia,

Sullia taluk,



 jA:~?':~3,{;I'*I<;:~.%:é4:l:"2§,l 1 measuring 1 acre

Dakshjna Kannada Dist.

3. Sri. Samputa Narasimha Devaru,

Submmanya Mutt,
Subramanya,

Sullia tahxk,

D.K.,

Rep. By its Manager.

{By Sri. K.M.Nata1aj, Adv. For R;N£$;3, S:-i.»     
R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, HCGP"f9_rR_.No.  RiNo.2. )

This Writ petition  226 and 227 of
the Constitution.» 'cf _3'ndi_a_, praying"-.1;ov__qiuash the judment
passed by fl1af:...I-i",4az'Qa;._1;al.clt.35§ I»1}~0:'i-- .vid'¢  A, etc.

T1us w:itT%1éent5£;:i%   gci$iV1"fi3'V»r prclinainary hearing in
'B' GI*oup'this 'day;'.th¢'Cpu;\.t...p&5sed the following:

 ;§fiQRDER-

T15»; pétijf_iofiér;«.c1aimi11g to be the tcnant of the land

situated at

  Panja I-Iobli, Sullia taluk, Dakshina
   fihas prcfermd this Writ petition, sceldng a writ

_ _   quash the order Annexure 'A' dt. 25-11-05 of
  AA Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, passed in

  No. 75 (2005, dismissing the appeal and comixmjng

%



the order of the second respondent -~ Authorieed oflieer, dt.

I8-11-04, passed vide Annexure 'B', whereby,.....fi;e

respondent has rejected the application    

No.7A, for grant of occupancy    

land in Sy.No.48/ 1 in his favemf'. . V V 2

2. I have heard sn.   
Counsel appearing for   the
learned Counsel  No.3
and the  é   Pleader, Sri.
Satyaxxarayaxia. No. 1 and 2.
I have    by the KAT vide

Annexure   original order passed by the

second  44 éautnonsed officer, vide Annexure 'B'.

 3.» _  Aeseeond respondent -- amhorised ofl'i<::er,k fiat

     clanI1' of the petitioner, by order Annexure

.  dt. 18v--g 1t.1~04 rejected his claim. The petitioner aggrieved

'  "girder of the second respondent passed vide Annexure

'.   ehaflenged the same in Appeal No. 75/2005 before the

 e»»..4 Kan1ataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, under Sec. 118(2)

of the Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Appellate Tribune},
w/



4
reapprociatirlg the material evidence on record and also
relying upon the Division Bench judmont of 
reported in ILR 2002 Ker. 1342, by its 
passed at Armoxtxre 'A' (it. 25-11-05, a 
preferred by the petitioner and  T'
order -~ Almexuro 'B'  
Authorisegi officor. The  couzrse of
its order has thoroughly'   of 77A and

Rules 17, 26C and . [me  Land Reforms

Ru1e.s,197-4. I.t4_.i§.-».'.,   ;;ar.2ig9bf its omer.

"9) In  Qmsont  the appellant has
pmduc*3d"L;t11o' copy-of the RTCS of the
iand in qtiostion fofthc. year 1968-69 to 1980-
8I,""_&1996--97'.to  and 2003-04. As
per G.oI.No.12{2)'  said RTC8, it is one
K.Govir::.iacha;§ whovls shown as cultivating the
 qtxesfion. "None of thwo RTCS shows at
 ..':__fhe;_mi::vant  i.e. immodiatoly prior to 1-3-
,'  1974, tho appellant was in possession and
 T cu1i:ivéL?.io;1 "of the land in question and further
._ ""136 to be in msscssion duxing the
'  .1998-99, when Section 77A was insertaed
Vidt.-'. A'Lt. No.23 of 1998. In View of this, it is
 evigiefnt from these revenue records that the
H * : appéllant was not cultivating the land in
u _ question as a tenant either immediately prior to
'I---3»-- 1974 or continued to be in possession
during the year 1998-99 when Section 77A was
inserted."



 



5

6. It is this order of the KAT and of the authorised

officer, which are called in question in this writ   ~.,

7. Evomzhough, I am satisfied, after   

two orders, that more is no    7. AV

orders inviting my intcrferonoc,   ortior  to"  'ad

opportmfity to the petitioner,  aokotj   
show any document to':  he was
cultivating the lanol in   on 1-3-74 and
prior to that    rho Government as
on the   tho learned Counsel has

failed to do  or = T?  

8. As' V"'3§1ck;,   ' absolutely no scope for my

 orders. Hence, the following:

ORDER

“oefifion is dismissed as devoid of merits and no

‘ ” ‘order as fooosts,

Sfi/-J
fudge