IN um HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALo1:'E _
Datedthisthe 26"'day aI'March, 2008 ..
Before _
HIE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE' HV cf
WritPetitian 1392 / %20?'3%&%&A%%%]* T
Between: . ' - %
NeJ:.1am.rn..a, 25 m
Wfo Shivaraya Nandi
Ag1"icaiafi'ist, E'J6 Nagosr -- V ; _
Gulbarga District '~ V 1 Petitioner
(By Sri Mar1ikappg:vP:§tTi:Vlfi, _'Adv§;') 3:
And: 1 " V'
1. Statebf 'its-.Se;:reta.#:,-" V
Pésvenue 3- Building
Rsma§dgre'l '
......._=,... 4-- - _
2. tl,:flln"idV{'V'}.'-:':1Il'.'£'lii'5I'i},V'(".u"-"t3.lA
,ByitsChairm:1n* '
% V" x éllévanasiddappé shsémupadappa Nandi
~ " » _ V Agrieuimfisg R/0 Nagoor, Guibarga Respondents
1 GA for R1-2)
m«.:. Pe-tition is filgd may _A_:~:=22¢5./227 of the Constitution
: pI’:nJri_.ng quash the order -dated 26.11.20 ‘2 ~ armexure D, by the Land
Griiibafga.
Tifis'”Writ Petition coming on for I-Iearing this fin’-. Cfiiifi fi”de the
% 4 u _,,f5llowing: “U,
~81)”
Petitioner has sought for quashing the order L”
Gulbarga in passing an order vesting themland its the .Cieventrrient,”‘.on T.
’26,] I _’200?._
According to the petitioner,«,siie–.. “mger ‘ *~”:”T land “ad “a
possession in respect of Sv;No..23ll.’.1airout 6.09 acres. One
Revannasiddappa in respect of the said
land. After was grant of occupancy
rights in Ijoesever, writ petition was filed by this
petitioner in was decided on 18.02.1979 remanding the
matter by lqeashingi Land Tribunal. During pendency of the
matterbefore the during enquiry some statement is also said to have
been’ on behaltlof the petitioner stating that the land in question in
A Sy,_No;2.3:1:»’«1. ;.1,asur~i_ng _bout tSJ_)9 acres is i_n his own possession and nobody
the RTL’:__is not correct and even the statement of Neeiarnrna wfo mti”ar-‘ya
is that after the death of her husband, she continued to be in possession
‘ and cultivation and she has raised a loan from the Bank for about Rs.25,000/-.
However, despite non–appearance of any other person to claim right of tenancy
\Ia LI
Lb.)
after remand, the Land Tribunal has passed an order vesting the land’ the
State. Hence, thi petition.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the _Gove§:nrnientAl;F.fleader_;
:. ….__ 1… ..:_………. -1: .. …. ‘..’ .. :. .’ 15.’
It is seen tut: Ci” uman 1 ii’: _.i…a1u’i T1x’fiuu”iai in ui”_u..:e
application in Form 7 has to be rejectedpii the ground tltataince nobody has
appeared before the Tribunal to” eontend’thatiii_tihellnarne in lthVe”RT(43 in Cloumn
12 is that of the applicant and ‘riot’ii*tg!l5’tl.riiat .has..appeared to contend
that they have filed. application”in_”VForin”~:7’elairnhz.gii’V occupancy rights, the
Chairman has takeiithe in rejleetingppthe application Form 7.
What is have been some statement made in
support of Foirzn ‘F statin.g’ltbiat»–it.li’a.al tenanted land of which the applicant was
_ i_n_ oeenpatien and cinlylon such statement available, on further remand of the
Ii:’~.1:f’n–in1 1| uner
V V’ _ tl1ems’elvea.__t1iatpn’oA such Form “7 is filed rejecting the same by majority of the
l brdering the land to be vested with the Government only on the
it of the Form 7 said to have been filed that to without assigning any
_rea.son is bad in law and as tightly noted by the Chairman, no upporting
evidence is also let in before the Tribunal to hold that the land was a tenanted
W
fin-A
and and the application was filed by a particular person and aoeofliifiillyg has
that it was not a tenanted iand. Oniyi on the aeore that the -uapgiiiicatioh
7 is filed, the majority members haveV:.opined that thev-lanoévests with the
Government which is erronéoua. Iieriee,e–:thejord¢er of the Tflbmtal requires
interference.
In thei’res:o.it;r tharMLaner[}Tzibuna1 vesting the land with the
Govenunerttvis order of Chairman of the Tribunal
rejeetin,vs.1;-tl1e’–If”‘o1m whieh._tiitithately leads to the conclusion that the land
ermnted
mnJa