IN TH E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THES THE Am DAY OF DECEMBER 2009"'*--.G
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.s.BoP4Aj\;NAV.: O
WRIT PETITION NO.E:4O2'/«QQC-.48 (1:.R}V'-V
BETVVEEN:
E KR1sHNAP1>A.v'. _
S/D.LATE.vENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED 45 YEARs_,"R/AT*.NQV.9s, ,
TERU BEEDI-11, HOS}{OTFj;., ; " ,
BANGALORE RURAL D1S"I'F6_1CT;_ " A 4_
2 SMT MUi\.1.1Y_'AMMA§ V:
w /Q\_,LATE{V13N.KATA.RAM.A;r.3APPA;'
AGED ,D.'96.-- '
TERLIVB-RRDHI, Hos.K0f1*E.
BA1'-IQALORE' RU RAL. DESTRICT.
3 =.sM'I' JAYAMM =1)/'Q LATE MUNE GOWDA
w/ G. LA*FE.V"E1'-~lKfi.{1'A§{A.R/EANAPPA,
AGED 50 YEARS..R.'/AT.No.184,
-- .. 4TH CROSS; MUNVESHWARANAGAR.
. Y'E3SHWAi\1THPUR.
' i.8ANGAL0RE:'.'"'.
A. °SMT"'::«.AROJAMMA
"'xx.i'zQ.sRi'N'1VAs.
AGBDAD36 YEARS, R/AT HAL.
~ A NAGA REDDY COLONY, 7TH CROSS.
.. v§:LLAp£>A BUILDING,
VBANGALORE2. PETITIONERS
O' --(E<y SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU. ADV.)
é
Ex)
AND :
I THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE SOUTH TAL-UK.
BANGALORE.
2 GOVINDARAJ U
SENCE DEAD BY LRS.
(A) B.G.UMASHANKAR
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU ».
AGED 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.l229. Sm MAIN ROAD,1_ 'A
K.N.EXTENSION, TRIVENI ROAD
YESHWANTHPUR. ' _
BANGALORE. '
(B) MURTHY S/O LATE GOvINDARA;J.1_I
AGED 50 YEARS'=--_f'_
R/ATNO.259,6TH
MALLASANDRA, ASOIJTH 'IvIA_RI'-:ET. "
BANGAL.QRE_~57§.: '
3
S /O.I;A';E,y'ENRATARAMANAPPA.
"AGE IvIAJOR..,_ A ' --- '
R/AT % NADAGOWDANA' GOLLAHALLI.
EIDARAHAID.ImI'OBI.I',
. _ BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
BANGALORE. V RESPONDENTS
I W{By SRIIRAMAGHANDRA R. NAIK, HCGP FOR R--1.
V IR:2{AI_a&r2IB) 'AND RAB ARE SERVED)
TH:S--,v§zRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND ;?,27'*'OI? THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUA'SH':.'FHE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 25.6.1996 PASSED BY
A = GIST RESPONDENT IN ITS ORDER PRODUCED AT
.VAN':'_.EEXURE~--J l.
E THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR EWNAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOVVING:
&
'EU
to
3
ORDER
The petitioner is calling in question the order
dated 25.63.1996 passed by the first
NOLRF (B) N.G.3:122’7:79 produced at
the petition. ._
2. The father of petritionezr
also husband of the second’~..pet.iti’oner._V’had’:..;fi’ieVd’°Form»V
No.7 seeking occupancy;.—rights–».._ in “revs.pec§t of the
properties measuring’ in Survey N0.
34, 1 acre and lacre 16
guntas I situate at Nada Gowdana
Gollahatljj/.i~ Bangalore East Taluk. In
respeczet of the._VS:aid iproperties, at the first instance, the
. ‘o.c_cu.paney*~.vright was granted in favour of the said
2VeI1katar–ar1:.ai’1appa. However the same came to be
qttitesttbneéd before this Court, in W.P.No.24596/81. by the
it original second respondent herein. This Court had set
Aitatside the order and rernitted the matter to the Tribunal
J;
4
for fresh consideration. Pursuant therein the present
impugned order is passed.
3. The ease of the petitioners is that._4.atter~.._the
remand, when the matter was pe11ding:__befofr”e.f
Tribunal. the said Venkataifarnelnappa’.Vand’V
thereafter the petitioners ~ are
Representatives herein we;~.e”11.ot broughtp on It is V
contended that the third re–sp’ond–ent. whov..is..o11e of the
sons of Venkataramanappa..iI’»ivitthoutithe knowledge of
the petitioners hei”ei_n a.p’;:te_areV’d”:bvefore the Tribunal
and abasetd theV’st.sat’e.n1e1’1t: said to have been made by
the third Tribunal has rejected the
claim _ in Viespeet or two Survey Numbers and has
right only in respect ot Survey
nie.asuri11g 1 acre 7 guntas The petitioners
have therefore questioned the said order. It is no doubt
.. true the outset the order impugned In this petition is
‘flhdated 25.6.1996. However, the petitioners have
‘explairaed the reasons for approaching this Court
it
g-I
rs
belatedly by stating that they were not aware of the
proceedings.
4. At the outset, the very nature of the conter:.tion
put forth is that they were not made
proceedings after the death of__the__fatl_–1’er’thvirdfl
respondent. has also been irn’pleade’d to A’this’lpiet.itiion
with allegations made aggainst. h’irn.»_ llen.e’e=».ir’1l that’
background a perusal of woul-d.’yindicate that
during the pendencyl’theprrjceleldiengsybefore the Land
Tribunal, 1 Rule 10 was
made hirnseli” indicating only
the narne’ of the third petitioners herein.
In fact. zip-plieat-ion was supported by affidavit
respondent; as if he has been authorised to
which is available along with.
Anne.:'<ure'–°H would indicate that the third respondent
A. h.irnseli" had mentioned about the other applicant being
younger brother that is the first petitioner herein.
" llowever, perusal of the app1icat.i.on at Annexuremi-*1
,4:
II
6
would indicate that. his name not indicated therein.
Further the originai second respondent herein had
objected to the said application as at AI1nexure..~_iE;_V In
fact. in the objection, the contention raised”w_a–S__”t;h_at_
there are other legal 1*epres’evn.tatiVes’~AV “Of.
Venkatararnanappa.
5. In that Cont.e,xt,”a”–perusa1’of the’A=ord.er–3sheet.i’
maintained by the __Land T.riubun’a1_v wouI«d.V_inAd§icate that
the said appiictationttéwas Ct)i3Sid€Tati011 before
the TribunaI,_:V’f__)n was adjourned
for (::o11sid’efa,ution4.V– .S’u.bsequeVntIy, the order sheet does
not indicate tuhatliaeé”aairi””a1pplicatioI1 has been disposed
of,’ in t.huat.vxeo1’11te§{t. from 25.1.1996, the matter was
and on the said day, the
it has been pronounced by the Tribunal.
A’««peri_1sa,i«:”of the order would indicate that reason for the
.. Tribunal to grant. occupancy right in respect. of only one
‘ ‘*._VSuArvey Number is that the third respondent herein had
“himself stated that the claim is only in respect of one
3%
51
ll
7
Survey Number and the other properties are not
claimed. The statements as made by him was recorded
and the Tribunal has passed the order. Cont:rary_to_V the
said position. the statement of Venkatarama-n_appa;_
Whicli was originally recorded bypthe COp3.’a:
which is available at AI1I1€Xui’._€~K”‘w’:)L1ld_ ‘i1idicia:teyt;i,i_at:
Venkataramanappa had ‘elairrledd’~occupa._neyv«»rigl=its
respect of 3 Survey’Il?’:oArInf§No.7 had
been submitted. _When the claim
was made name by filing
Form No. representatives
would be same and in any event, the
third resporivdentkhlad’not claimed right to the properties
filing Form ….. ..No.7′ in his individual capacity.
‘ after the death of Venkatararnanappa, the
‘border by the Tribunal without appropriate order
to bi’iIi;%f, the legal representatives on record would be a-n
.irre_gu1ar order.
J;
.-I-‘9
to
8
6. Therefore, the procedtire comemplated in law
has not been complied with and as such the order dated
25.6.1996 impugned in this petitiorl be
sustained. The same is accordingiy q}_§_ashe’d-i.
matter stands remitted to the ‘1_,a11_(:1 “I’r_i1E)ii1″1e1’i~ restQre”.
the case in NQLRF (B) N.G.3:Vi.221?:i7§ tori
Land Tribunal is further (ii1’_v.€CIV8d to lziiringi’tviieipestiitiioners. i’
1 to 4 herein on 1’€CQ_i”d. the.r.e§;it’.er«.issLie”110.tice§ to all the
parties and 1’ec0nsidei: in accordance
with law. are ieft open to
be ‘
In above, the petition stands
disposed 0i’.O”Orde’r as to Cost.
Sd/-*
JUDGE.