IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA cmcurr BENCH AT DI-IARWAD Dated this the 1701 day of August 2009 PRESENT THE I-ION'BLE 1VER.JUS_'_I'I.CE'N. AND _ THE HON'BLE MRJUSTI¢E..§3.SREERI'JASEV:RGQWDA Writ Aiaoeai "8,RQ'8-Qf 20025 i R_ Between: A R V R . BHIRA KUPPAIAN NA11o~1\1.nE1~sf:'sl. (BY SR1 K.B.ADHYAPAK, ADDL. oovr. Amfoefareiiisok AND R2) This Writ appeal is filed under of _'l;.l'i.e._ High Court Act, praying to set_asidei'*the'--order~C|.t. V11.O3.2008g Passed in Writ Petition No. 2E5'5--r_2'3..F'f 2003 afld " This writ appeal _corning_on:A"for"prelirnir1a1jyhearing this day, N.Kurnar J., deliveired the folioWing:' llpreferred appellant challenging the order Iiassed Single Judge who has dismissed the writ pet«i.tion. TheA~-appellant claims that he is a tenant in .__the a"gri£.=...1lturai lands comprised in Sy.No. 254, 22/2 and 198 situated at Bengaie village, Si.rsiliTali;i*l%.j.*:_ dfiliccording to him he fiied Form No.7 seeking grant.' of occupancy rights under Section 48(A) of the Karn_atal<:a Land Reforms Act on 27.12.1976. By an order 19.10.1981 the Land Reforms Tribunal granted L/. occupancy rights in respect of Sy.Nos.254, 255 and 221 to an extent of 22 guntas, 24 guntas and 1 acre 37 guntas respectiveiy. One Narasimha Annappa I-Eegde challengedpthe same before this Court in writ petition No.334 of 19S'2;--i petition was allowed and the matter was . Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance' iiS_:.pVo1'1: reconsideration the Tribunal has". paissed _ordier"'*---.onf 12.03.1996 granting occupanicy'--~._.right'~ in the appellant in Sy.Nos.221, 254, 255,i22;5,'V.1_, :98 22/2 to an extent of 1 acre and 37ig,"..iir1tasi,, .24 guntas and 1 acre and 2 guntas, 36 guntas respectively. Respondents~»(3V filled iWirit_:_iPetition'"'No.27113 of 1996
cha1ienging~.theVgrant’of'”occ:.1pancy right only in so far as
Sy.Nos. 225*,f 229/i”2_ contending that no reasons are
assigned for gra’nt_iol’ occupancy right in respect of the said
in pwjrit-._petition was allowed quashing the order of the
in respect of the aforesaid three lands
_ against: which an appeal came to be filed in Writ Appeal
it “of” 1999. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for
9′ _ fresh consideration in respect of the claim
regarding those three survey numbers. The Tribunal on
reconsideration rejected the claim in respect of so
also in respect of Sy.No..’225/1 and 22/2 the’
appellant has not produced any record to riarrie
Finds a place in the cultivator’s coivumniiin r’espect_.:ofut.hieii
three survey numbers.
2. Aggrieved by the,Vsaid:oird’eri,; thefiappellantiiipreferred a
Writ petition. The learned._iSiin’gle:iJLidge_”:Olijxzonsideration of
the material ‘.011: 1*-ecoi/id as Sy.No.198 is
concerned, of some other person
by the orderifoiti.theiffiandigTribunaldated 31.10.1981 and the
same hays not by the appellant and therefore,
the said order in so survey number, the appellant
hasgli-ost this rightiiiin so far as Sy.Nos.225/1 and 22/2 is
iconcerned, ithas recorded a categorical finding that in Form
ii\To.-‘..7_ iiled.:”‘there’-is no mention of these survey numbers and
theirefore___vheld*” that the Tribunal was justified in giving the said
ziiggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge
ii i”tih’e,ap.pellant is in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant
assailing the impugned order of the learned Single Judge
contends that the appellant was an illiterate person ajndy he
had to depend upon others even to fill up Form
have not included the said survey numbers in'<.__i*'orin.
Under these circumstances a too technical y_view.;of:Vthe mattenr';
is taken by the learned Single Judge :and'–therefo;fC,"it rec1ui~rels' ._
interference.
3. We do not find said contention.
Unless at c1aim.vi.SlI”11.ade ‘Section 4l~8{A) of
the Karnatak’a””_.._Land_V. Tribunal has no
jurisdicticn..to”enteiEtaini–.a the same and pass
an order Taking note of such
helplessness on many of these tenants, the
legis,l.a;ture arnended the law and extended the time for filing
the. _,applicatio1i._Vand prescribed a separate procedure. When
ithe”p_etition~e_r omitted to mention these survey numbers
in F”orm,_” ‘Nod’? filed, law provided him to file one more
yjapplication Form No.’7A within time prescribed under Section
the Act which admittedly the petitioner has not done.