High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt N Sunanda W/O Lt N Shivanna vs The State Of Karnataka Dept Of … on 19 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt N Sunanda W/O Lt N Shivanna vs The State Of Karnataka Dept Of … on 19 January, 2010
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri


5

6. This petition is stoutly resisted by Sri R. Omkumar, the
learned Additional Government Advocate. He holds the

petitioner guilty of the suppression of material facts. Heesu»-l:4lm_i_ts

that the land in question is ‘B’ kharab kunte land,

granted to any private party. He also submits that

also liable to the rejected on the short:=._gro.ulnd btavai-lebilfiety

alternative remedy. He submits that-..the irnpllgnecé”e’nVdo_Vrseniient

may be challenged by way of an beforleythe Vvzllssistant
Commissioner. . V 2

7. This directed the
A.G.A. to nntl wréitflvfafpivpeal and/or SLP is filed
against the order; passed by the learned Single
Judge in vv.P.No’.5i9l§6/2ooA7il.” ‘ibis submitted at the bar by Sri R.
gilvritx’a’p’peal or SLP is pending.

position is that the Land Tribuna|’s order,

V:v.i>i»–…..a’»ated granting occupancy rights in favour of Late

‘H-f«f’.j’:}hiva.nna hasattained finality. The belated attempt made by the

to challenge the same is already negatived. This

‘V:7Co’l.iVr_ty__by its order, dated 17.4.2608 dismissed the writ petition

flied by the Government on the ground of delay and laches.

$35;

5
Under these circumstances, the Land Tribunal’s order has to

reach the logical culmination in the issuance of the consequential

documents.

9. That the land is a ‘B’ kharab kunte land is _

for the first time in the endorsement issued in

that it is ‘B’ kharab kunte land, the p:e_titioniefr’s–iua’pplica’ti’oinV 7

to rf

the grant of occupancy rights ought to ‘l’i.a_\’re be<:–n'7'.'ilr~.

liméne. The Assistant Commissionelriandthen'i*a_'hisi':ldar§ are the
Chairman and the Secretary Arefspec-itively 'o._ffth"eyLand Tribunal. It
is not known why they did_..n.o't=,bri.ng_ notice of the

members 'ybllllvkhyarab kunte land and that
therefore thecsgame for the grant of occupancy
rights. It _a|soln*ot_:'l<nown"v.as"'to why the writ appeal and SLP is
not filed the otderor the learned Single Judge. Be it as

it rna_y',' order of the Land Tribunal has attained

— vi’-iinalityi’ ,__fliheVC.h’a’l-gleihge to the Land Tribunal’s order cannot be

-i_l.l’_j’e.n.telrtaéned”the collateral proceedings and that too in the

4:~.’_:pr.oce’edi_n.g’As initiated by the L.R.s of Shévanna,

ii). The impugned endorsement virtually reads like the

passed by the Appellate Authority on the Land Tribunals

ER

order. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that it is the
one without authority of law and without jurisdiction. Therefore,

notwithstanding the avaiiabiiity of aiternative rernedy,j”I–,:’fh_a’v_e

entertained this petition on merits. The preiiminarir

raised by the Government stands overru_ieo.,._,

11. In the result, I aliow this,p_etition,ouash,thie’,iVnipugnedV”g

endorsement and direct the seco’n’d.:respont§~en’trTahsiidar to
effect the mutation in the narne ioetviftioners respect of
the land at Sy.i\Io.438 of Devana,ha”.EiiV»tii|i–atj’eA–f.irn_e’asuring 1 acre

minus 106′ X 40′ (wi’1ic:.h’ oo=rtiori–e*§s the erection of

Tippu a’n..j.fQ’iEter.”V|ViVniit of 4 months from the
date of production of of today’s order before

the Tahsiidar.

:VTh_iss:.peti’t~io’n is aliowed on the above terms. No order

as to cos’ts_.,i

Sd/-

JUDGE