IN THE I-{IGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
Dated this the 20:1: day of JUNE , gcso3 % % u
BEFORE 3
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE g%,»ksREEN%r«§é$ G%)wm§ ' ~
WRIT PETITION No.;3g6835 /'_j,2i)£)3,A.(LR}- 5
Between:
U.F.M. Venkatcsh, _ _
S/o. S ym3&"BmA_Q . ,.
Agtrd about 50 yrs, ' ' "
R/0. Gudubalii village,
Holagaddc : '
North fli=st*','?'..__ " . ' _
Presently Ri»at%%i3?4cr0$s;%M ~
Hosamanm V'
Slxilnogia, ' , V
. . PE'I'I'I'IONER
(By4§Sfi.R.V.Jayr§pfa}céLsh, Adv. for petitionmx)
"
1.' - TheL21nd Tribunal,
tzaluk,
K11?-lta+
= 4_ Rep. By its Chairman.
" The State of Karnataka,
Rep. By its Secretary to Govt,
Revenue dept,
' M.S.B1dg,, Dr.Am.bcdkar Veedhi,
Bangalore.
made in respect of 10 guntae of land in Sy.No._1/3 of
Holagadde village, Kumta taluk and granting of
the said land in favour of the feurtzh xesponderif. V 7'
2. I have heard Sri.Ia_R.1j2a.féuy§épi4akasi2gf-Le,_'_Viezgzineti--.A'I
Counsel appearing for the peޤone1?,_e11d
learned Counsel appcafilmg $0.4 and Sri.
Sathyanarayana Govt. Pleader
appearing for "
3. €F*a.i.r';_t,e this writ petition are
namely Shankaranarayana
Bhat to: be4V the' in respect of 10 guntas of land
v in 191 V'0f.§aI9iagadde village, Kumta taluk, filed Form
---.'.1'ribu::1a1, Kumta, seeking to register him as
fhe land. At the same time, the fourth
--- Ramakrishna, also made Form '7 to the same
"ii Tribunal, seeking to register him as occupant of the
' land. The Land Tribunal by its earlier order -Annexure
'TB' dt.24- 10-78 considered the claim of the petitioner and
@y.
4
registered him as occupant of the land and rejected the claim
of the fourth respondent
4. Sri. Jayaprakash, learned Counsel appeafing for
the petitioner vehemently contends that the “of the
Land Tribunal (it. 24-10-78 registering °-of
the land and rejecting the claim of
not been challenged by the but eoyzaaaid %%
order of the Land Tribunal oias
questioned by the . ‘ufio1e, namely
Mahabaleshwar writ petition
No.27099/ 1996’ e. Court allowed the
said writ; i:1§;e”ea1*fier order of the Land
Tx~ibun:;1 dt. 24-10-78 and remitted
the Kuinta for reoonsideraflon in
aocroxfdargoe reconsideration, the Land ‘I’rib1mal
V. ‘ &o’f’fl 1e Petitioner and gamed the occ11pEu’1C¥
‘ in question favour of the fourth
‘ V V ‘ ‘ respondeim A
.. 1 It is the contention of Sri. Jayaprakash, the
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that though
fourth respondent has not challenged the earlier order of the
Land Tribunal, passed vide Annexure *3′ dt. 24-dd1od;t7e,a and
the same became final, in so far as the
concerned, it is not open to AV
occupancy right in his favour. It his
the fourth respondent is ownet of
the Zand, namely Shet, being his
brother’s son and he claim against
his own family’ clear, it is stated
that am Ganapathi Shet are
direct — Ramakrishna, is
the Sri. Jayaprakash also brings to
my notice records relating to the land in
V. “Q11§~§tton””Ah€1V¢ etandiilg in his name continuously,
relevant period of 1-3-74 and prior to that.
. Be the Land Tribunal is required to consider
the petitioner has been cuitivating the land in
A ‘question as tenant on 1-3-74 or prior to that. The Land
is also required to consider the fact that the fourth
VA ‘ ” Vrespondent having applied for grant of occupancy right in
respect of the same land, and his claim having been rejected
%
by the Land Tribune} by its earlier order vide Armexgue ‘B’ (it.
24- 10-78 and the fourth respondent having nofi
the said order before this Court, whether
reconsidered and he be xeg’ste3:ed”s.s, ‘of1’
the order passed by this Court J
the uncle of the fourth
6. At this the learned
Counsel for to me that this
Court pf, No. 27o97/ 1995,
set asidemtixew Tribunal, passed vide
AImex’o_IE__ -with a direction’ to the Land
reoonsiderr olatter afresh after issuing notice
to aL’_§the including the fourth respondent.
V’Be. axoay, the Land Tribunal is required to consider
with the provisions of the Land
V and in the light of the observation made by this
its order passed in W.P.No.27()97/1996. While
— so, a duty is cast upon the authority to consider the
T ” of the fourth respondent, bearing in its mind that he is
claiming tenancy under his family member. It is open to the
M3
fourth respondent to contend before the Land Tribnznal that
he is not claiming tenancy under his family when
the Land Tribunal has failed to consider
and failed to consider the mattcfiiiixi __ AV
obscxvafions made by this A
deem it just and t}.1ca”?_I’nnticr for
rcconsidcration. Hence; ~.j;hc – .. A
The i The impugned order,
‘A’ is inside. Matter is rmittcd to
the ‘a.:’:§1iz’6ction to reconsider the matter in
accordance oioirioions of the Land Reforms Act and
V’ also the. iigt obsezvations made by this Court in
All the contentions raised by the parties
V arc ii§c;ptThc Land Tribuzoal is directed to confide-.r the
‘ ” ‘f_Vnr.aAttcr issuing notices to all the parties concerned and
VA them an oppoxtunity of hearing.
Jud