High Court Karnataka High Court

Lawrence Fernandes vs The Land Tribunal on 28 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Lawrence Fernandes vs The Land Tribunal on 28 January, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
4. Luna ?er<~:ira
D/'G Late Baptist Pemira

S. Mishaci Laney Ptmsira
SE9 Late Baptist Pezreira

6. Vinwni Pcmim
Sic: Late Baptist Pereira   ,

7. Lawxma Farias

Din Late Baptist Pereirgj '   L

Rcspondcizt  to 75A_arc:_:  
Legs! R6Pr€'$~*fi*-'iiiméf    
Baptist Pt35.'F't3iI'%i"'n'c§i.'!<.3   '

ResidenzATe:*A1apa7pgd;1jziéaaa 

Padil,VPo~.§t *  _  .
Mangalore-5?5  " ; '  RESPONDENTS

(By SI*1ri_ Singh, Government Pic-ader fer
Respersdergt N0. =1, Siiri. Y. Rajenclxapmsad Shetty, Admcate fa-r

= ,_Rtsp_:§i}d;§z}Vi:s 2″?’ 4…T..’;”, R€3″Sp(}1′!d<:n{ No. 3 — Sarvad)

*$£'8=f-'*

A ._ is fiied under Articles 226 :-md 22? 01' {ha

Cuxmiiutian 'ézf 'India praying to quash the Order by the Land

V –VTrib::iia§,Lrf:ai1ga3orc:'Rcspondeni Nu} daicd 12.3.2003 vidc
" ' »- v _ __ ;~%.1;nexurr=:.»"5. in LET 202:84~–85.

ibis Wfit Psiiiien Gaming am far Hearing this day? this

C§:%':;rt made the folizming: –

that the said Baptist Fcmira had {Bad an applicatiun in Fur;’ri’§2u:2-

A, claiming as an :~.1gri<.::t:}t.um3 tabourtar in mspezct (sf t¥':ixx;:'VC£:__:';"1tVVS_,_¢;:'49§

hand and the same: had Ewen disposcii of "

gzfistitiuncr whittt granting uwncrship in:’..;’t3:spe:¢.;.tf1vt2:f–

of Earn} by the Tribtmai.

The petitioner had, petition befurt:

this Cuurt in its outer, dated

2.} I .1998 ramanded the mattsr for 3

fresh u.;gsidférgsi,{;::. M

E)11tii:rgx’ t31§’V–pe1:d£§r£¢t:y uf thfi gimcwdingrs, it transpires

Jttihai 5.-.”:tai{i Bai§i§S’t””‘Pcreixa had expired and his iegat

Vftgzfxivez ccynfinuttd this pnfiatings and harm

‘ pmst:cutc¢§>Eh§<:'sétme. It ix the pctitim'It:r':s cast: that the petitiuncr

$2113 Vfipughtsfur scwicze psartitxuians at' the: erstwhile: tzmpkxytrr £3?

'_'_'t'~_Btéi.3V::Vrt'i:§':'A'P<:reir*a and that the: said Baptist Ptzrcka being at fut}-time

"..:VVVefii'ployac of the Electricity Beard, conic} mat attso attain: as an

2

5
agxicuiiurdi laboumr and in this regard, the petitioner had suughi

fur emmnwrning <3? dotzumcnis {mm the txxnesraffiszii 'ttiixnpeiérs-§.V

authorities, which the Tribunal rci'::5e$.I§.

4. The; pctitiuncr _V . gd-¥:¥£=iEifi¥t:¥r:VVigd4pp3ic%§«ifi(}n
?:a’i:3«§’:§Li!’!g in sexzum 1t:cc3rd:§ ‘Said Baptist Ptzreim
{:3 demonsirats from his erstwhiic
cmploytsr Beard and furthar in
n Mangaiore 10 aiemunsirzzie that {he hind,

“‘e__ *wl{:i<.:}: Zbeen ciaimed Baptist Pt.-trxsim and which had been

to be mnfaneé in his favour by $316 Tribtmai, did not

mfisisi 9? any residcniial premisctxg which he could ciaim as as}

Q

agriculture} iabuurer. in this regard, the Tribunfl ha(i_ again

rejected the ciaim of the: p-t:titit3m:r"t0 pcmaii any such

being pmduccd. ii is in this fashion that the pefitifiher.

sl0m:–waHead in nut being abic to esiabiish.' e:c;vt;r*dE.::i rt:;msi:ia°:c£s

which wnuld dt3f}l0flSi!":iit3 that {ha Baffiisi }§t:I§§ii"d"

claim over the ferric} and the naiur€$Lfi:E'»£ht: ?i::iVf'1'2t§.W£'-.'.V!s"» siiégh {hag his

couid not ciaim it as $3 Iabourtsr
and lhai Bapiist Pew-Sm Wzis. e'u:.gIf€it;.¥'{£§§i;1¥'Viabt)urer. It is in
this main than Has_ {U hoid ihai {he

pf5[§ii0flf3f"$"§3iZ3j€3§i:i.'§<j"!~§ ib rsut be tsunsidcrsd.

6. the rmspondtznis wuifid ounlerid

flthai _§1″i;’.;.Q7§(f..”, ,{‘fivt’–t7 <§i"'i}:§;___.aLimiiicd ciruumsianuc that the pllwtfi' 01'

-,a’iifi«rj}-tr-3 i1;_§’3’r.i-‘;:’-r» the petitions: had appeared before the Trihumfl

3&3′ the ciaim {if his Bapiigi Pcreir:-1, is a

Vaiircurnaaiésgfiisc that wtmid miiitaitr againsi {his very mainiainabifiiy

i%1t_:rf’:reseni ptziiiiun. Vv’hi§e: incideniaiiy, the rtsspundenizs wuuid

w. to justify (ht: trrdm” uni’ the Tribuna}.

€>

7. in that above facts am} uimumaianccs, fiei§{i’:3fi¢:.’.*’js ‘

conicniiun {hat at t.’:\r’t:’:¥’}? step, the: flax baigrgicii

uppuriunity £0 Sendai” avidence, and its I’.LIl’:i.ata§’Iia’§, “‘~

(.it:f}}u!”!:§£F’d'{¢$ the character 13? ihc:
was mat an agricuiturai \€VtV:’!:;}¥Ui{!¥*iS(iiC{i{?!!
was taken away is to be ihai my three:

occasions,       Q independent
 'has been negated. This

tsiftitiffisiivésifltitt 4′ in jnfiiify inttrikrancc by this
Coxm,

V :_LE”u:r4i§::«:t.:::r”‘:..a:t3r3tc:nt}on of the cuutmei fur the: wspundtznis

ihétfi attorney huidttr of the petitioner had conccdtsd

‘Elm fi13iIi’1v.§.;i’ the peiiiiuncr by iiseif would net entitle the dewazxrd

_ r~;:$;x:~z:.{iuni Eu have bean exsiabiished his claim what; the very

jagsisdiciitrn :3? {ha Tfibuna} wank} be laimn away if this naium of

§

the land and the siatus of the deceased respomicnt is establiathed as

nut being an agricuitumi iabuurm”.

In thizs View of [hit ma£ii3_r’,”~._£he writ 1*-vatttiiiggirfiiegv…g;l3<{)wc£i;. '

Anncxure: -A is quashed. Tribunal
we Tribunal shail alllrafi' :§(3 {ht: pctiiiunttr Eu
ieudssr evidcnctjv to .d0(:1i!'flt3}'"t§:-3 {ham
independent '

3d/4
Iud<jé'