W A No. E246/2.008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GoPAI.AGo:.rv*ma;.'__'__;' A'
&
THE z«m1v'BL1: DR. JUSTICE K.
WRIT APPEAL No.12467.200]8
MISC.W. NO.3284/2009a.Al\lD 3285/'ZTOC99
BETWEEN
S Kfishnappa Pojaly, .
S/0 Pakeera Poojary, . V
Major, , '
Age: 63 years, H _. , .
Kelagina Nuliyahi l~I_c'}u$"e',5'.,__ b _
Nidpalli Village a11d'Pc3st, A
Puttur Taluk; - _ A 'Ti ll'-1 'V
D K. ll » l V ,. Appellant
.. " V A -. V (Cogunon in all the cases)
(By Sr} Vgshzafanatha Povojarfr K, AdV., for appellant)
1 . AB'?!.lEtl'§1'l'KSl"1Tv."1:'3.vvR8,.l.",- . V .7
50 years.
l ._y 2 . ' .Cl:1an{4:l1-.;--a}'a1il1.i
" " --« i§Age:'* 48 years... "
y A 3; yliaganrl-atha Rao,
7 45 years.
V 4~.nKiftanna Rafi,
"Age: 44 years.
Major. '
5. Sathyavathi,
Age: 36 years.
Petitioners 1 to 5 are the children
Of Aithappa R31 and aii are
Residing at Kelagina Nuliyaiu House.
Nidpalli Village and Post,
Puttur Taluk, D K.
6. Rathnasabha Rai,
W/0 Vittala Rae,
Major,
Residing at l\/Iangalore,
D K.
'7. Land Tribunal,
Puttur Taluk,
Puttur,
D K.
By its Secretary.
8. State 0fVKéifnais.3ia,V. :f:-3 3
By its Secretary to V " V
The GoVernni.ent_ of Ka1'naiaka';'i*--. i
Revenue Depaxitmentfi. " V' '
Vidhana Sudhage V ._
Bangalore-560 O01: V' V
Sudesh Kufinaig
*
, 10. ‘sfijathé,
1. _ : 1} ‘ AASTabi;§1a.. ‘
= . Major. ‘ L
u’S<')<')Arath Kumar,
v 'i«£.ag_g:_;
i«/
W A No. 1246/2008
Respondents
V _ _ (Common in ali the cases}
” -{By Smt. A D Vijaya, Addi. G A, for R-7 and 8}
W A No. E246/2008
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order passed__in W P
No.1 1096/1996 dated 2.1.2007.
Misc.W. No.328-4/2009 is filed under Section…_”,’»5T’ct? tile
Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 559–‘days”-in
the Appeal.
Misc.W. No.3285/2009 is filed JL1£idér~ SectionA,”i53, “of the
Code of Civil Procedure, praying to stay’-thei;”iinpugnederdei—..dai;ed
2.1.2007 passed in W P No.1l096/V1998. ” *
These cases coming on for”‘preliminai’y ll’iea;rin’g this day,
Gopalagowda, J., delivered the follovxringi
.3fu;>G1v_iem”~- [_
The correctness of the order Single Judge in
allowing the fil’e’d;by therespondents and remanding
the matter rcsplectl the claim of land bearing Sy.
No.189/ 1B of cor-.testing_ reisporidents herein by quashing the order
flated pas’sed…..1:;y the Land Tribunal, Puttur Taluk,
Futtur/’Ti? respo’nd’ent, is questioned in this Appeal. The learned
.Single’i.It:dge,’ «tiijhil’eVlexercising discretionary power to quash the
order 1m’pu.gi~.¢d’ this Writ Petition in considering the claim in
reliatioiiito the aforesaid property, has recorded a finding of fact
that lAinlAnnexure–G/Fonn No.7 filed by the appellant herein, the
contents do not disclose the claim in relation to Sy. No. 189/1B.
l»/
W A No. 1246/2008
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to
the Form No.7~Annexure–G. The claim is only in relatiorrto Sy.
No.189/12 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas. There is
respect of this property by the contesting responden7t.s i11jp’ethis”h\7\.lrjit
Appeal. Therefore, the learned Single J-u’dge« is
the order and remanding the matter.
3. The another contention by the«–lea’rne_dVV&VClounsel fore
the appellant herein is thatvthe claizii’inirellation to the said survey
number is belated. After the ‘order?’ an amendment
application filed by _t1′.1e contesting’!resjpclndents;«hefore the Tribunal
in respect orthe allowed on 26.2.1993. By
that time, limitation under the provisions
of the Land ‘T.herefore the learned Single Judge
:_ShO1V1_1d 1’:i_fe;§L~sre3s._der:lined'”‘to–.grant the relief and ought not to have
reri1anded.gthe*i ;matter for consideration by the respondent»
4. H the learned Single Judge has exercised
Lidisucretionaryv”power whether the amendment application of the
respondents allowed by the Land Tribunal will relate
‘ the date of filing the form No.7 or not is required to be
M
W A No. E246/2098
gone into by the Land Tribunai, We do not want to render any
finding on this aspect of the matter. Since the order of the Land
Tribunai granting occupancy rights in respect of the suit property
is not set aside, quashing of the order-Annexure~Q not..dg-zjaizting
the occupancy rights amounts to setting aside the grant
is not tenabie in law. Hence, it would suffice for “to igiveiéag
direction to the Tribunal to examine
aforesaid property is barred by lirniitation d i d V
5. Hence, this Writ Appeal is Vtheivfabove said
observation. d it i i it it
6. sih’ée’.pA,fga1fi:i:ri3V Ap’p”éa1″‘4 itself is disposed of,
M1sc.w.32s2Ai,/2009 of 559 days delay in filing the
Appeal is allovireddandp is condoned. Misc.W.3285/ 2009
:.for ._stay._ not survive’ foazconsideration.
Sd/-5
JUDGE
sa/–
IUDGE