(BY SR1. R. B. SATHYANARAYANA S§NGH,
HCGP FOR R4 TO 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER.A'ART:§.CL.;m 225
AND 227 01:' THE CONSTITUTIVON' {AF I;4:§1D1A,* 1yQA*mgc;L-Afro' . 'V
QUASH THE ORDER DA'I"E£).14?.9,2QO7} PASSED 'BY..%'Fi:§.E.'R~
2 IN CASE N0.1NA.cR.7/o6--o71«.w»DE AN:~:§:xLIRE§;a._2r;tszD
ETC. '
THIS WRYI' PETITION EQMING (5I~*I_§3'G--§t czfiaafias ms
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE E'()_LLQWIN"G:..._A
Heargjlé c(.:):1';M.ir'v%;..\<_;x;;1V'-fc2f"'ti1e petitioner and
also the i?1gas1¢§+. %
2. . Z A' pejiition under articles 226 and
227 r;}f Lhe' of Inéia, the pfititioner has
;:.j§3§1r:a¥. ix? 'q2,§¢$§fio§1, the orders éated 14.9.2007 and
. 19£§'2..Vpass&d by the 2&4 respondent and also the
Anekal, in Casa No.INA.CR.7/2{)06–O’7
1043/ 1979-80 viée Annexu;res–A as D2.
3. By the impugrled order at Annexure-1:32, the
Land Tribzznal, Anakal, has ganted occupancy rights,
ill favour of tha fathar of the petitiener, in respect of
Sy.I’€<).7 of Indiabeie viflage E0 the extent: of 0.37 guntas.
By the: impugned arder at Annexure~A, the 2&3
L/
respondent has rejected the claim of the petitieiaer for
grant of occupancy rights, in respect Of .' of
land in Sy.N0.7 of Incllabeie village.
4. Aggrieved by . » that, ” petitienfiv 3 fi}e(i.
this writ petition.
5. In brief, ‘th.e’»’1§etitioner’s father
Dyavaiah in respect of
Sy.No.7 extent of 1 acre and
29 has ganted occupancy
ex” 37 guntas, on the ground, %he
peVtitjoner’sV_:fat.herAexefied 9 acres 7 guntas of land and if
ia:1dt* ..eIai113ed/’is gamed, it would exceed the limit
Lr
‘, prescribed by the Act. Thereafter, the
Ap~etiti_eI1ei5~’has filed application for grant of occupancy
ts rigfits respect of 32 guntas of me in Sy.N0.7 of
A’ Intilsbele village which has been rejected and therefere,
this wxit petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the Land ‘I’ribunai and 3136 the 23d
:/
respondent have failed to consider that 9 acres and 7
guntas of land was owned by the joint family and not by
the father of the petitioner or the petitioner exc11;:i.:iffe.ly
and therefore, the impugned order trannot be _
in law. He also submitted that t1}OL!g}}.-ti”
Tribunal has held] the father 3
cuitivating the land claimed it >
occupancy rights only _ in res_p_eet_ e£f_37.”g,*ti_r1’tas;%on the
ground, if the land’ father of the
petitioner”‘isgratified, ‘womdwrrejiceed the limit i.e., 4
Act, which is totally
incorrect. a He ‘also__ that 9 acres and ‘7 guntae
of 1.«::.i;d oWned”~b-yethe joint family and not by the
fat.herr.o§.;:§et;it,io:1er or the petitioner exclusively and
ther_efore,.’theet:;impug11ed order cannot be sustained in
H”e,V__Aiherefore, submitteé that the matter requires
‘ “‘~;%eeorl€;ideration.
7 . As against this, the learned Govt. Pieader
submitted that the father of the petitioner and also the
petitioner have stated before the Land Tribunal that
L./”
¥h.e_’z€{5O’*”‘> _
land ané A11’ the land slammed by the father _…the
petitioner is garzted, it would exceed tiza limit”:
hectares prescribed by the Act. Thereafiex; ”
has filed an application claiming”32″g!:n’ta$ «%§fV:»I.afid–‘.
Sy.No7 of Indiabele viliage which i1$§,1f$é(‘:I1».i’g€§;§§§Ct€d’V,*::d§i’V
the geund, the claim of 1″1iS”vL.L:.ff§éa:therV. H16
same land has a1ready’:”becn censieigim. IjEEié”a}éf~o held,
the land has vested in thft Stsitef-‘«bev.1:m_s’.uIned to the
State. Neither”t}ir;f1’1’ibi.1z1:«;i*V1510:’ the§”29_?§V.respondent have
coxgsiderecz % and 7 guntas of land
belonged :0 the=joizf1t ,_f:a1_I1fly or/\_ the petitioner or/\ his
V fatI1cf:j.’ ” Ac1umit§fcCi1y,’V’ the material on record i.e.,
and G i.e., Pa.I1chayat,h Parikath,
c§_s.No.34/1935 and judgment passed in
V V . R.A.V§~fO.£é/20’O2 ciearly Show that 9 acires and 7 guntas
1a.;1dVV’belonged to the joint family and not tor the
petitioner or/k his father exclusivaly. Therefore, in my
V
” étjizxsidered view, the matter requires reconsidemtien.
I 1. Accordingly, the wait petitien is allewed and
the impugned €)I’d€I’s gassed by the 28% respondent and
also» the Land Tribunal, Anekal, vide Anmexures-A 8% D2
(‘/4
are hereby quashed and the matter is remittgci’:
2nd respondent, with a direction to re»{:c:§1:’sic1jc’:.1fVVL’
same, in accordanca with iaw at1¥iiV’i:r1« me
observations made: above. . ” ” ‘ V
3% v . _ ”