IN TIE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE WP.NO.268i9 OF 2995
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARMA TAKA A TBANGALORE
I}A'I'ED THIS 'TKE 301:]: DAY OF JUNE, 2008
BEFORE
ms Houms MR. JUSHCE NJCPA m _ n
W.P.NO. Q6819 OF 2005 %
BETWEEN
'I
LAKSHMI G BHAT
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS _
W10 GANESH N Bl-{AT _ _ 'V
NELLIKUNJA HOUSE, I-7.0 DCDDATHOTA, " V
SULUA 'mun ~ 3 1 V . ~-- '
VISHALAKSHI L_34A5~£3 Vi_Li.AG£€ '
BANTWAL T;.a'.'uI';KNO iv. " ,
KATIPALLASURA'THKIf-1.
MAMGALQRE TALUK.
rm' 'msxnacr 5%. 149. .. ..... V4 »
. FARVATH! .8' §3HAT
A j "AGED ABOUT 51T_Yi':'§ARS,
'WK? SHANiiAR Bi-!fi;T
MATHRUSHREE NILAYA,
KI'.-NYANA ~':!_2Li;AGE AND P'.O
BAN'fWAL TALUK
' V ox oasjmcr 574 279
V. "SHARADA <3 BHAT
. agar; ABOUT49Yt-ZARS,
" VWIGAGANAPATHY BHAT
lif.ABBiNAHiTHLU HOUSE,
= .. «-BALNADU VILLAGE P.O UJIRUPADE
PUTTUR TALUK D.K DISTRICT 574 203
JAYANTHI C K
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
IN THE? HIGH COHRT OF KARNATAKA AT £§ANGA1..ORE WP.NO-268i9 OF 3305
(BY SRLK SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)"
AND ; A'
1
IN THE HIGH CGIJRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. W.P3~EO.268I9 OF 2905
-2-
W10 CHANNAKESHAVA BHAT
CID LAKSI-{Mi G BHAT NELLiKUNJA HOUSE
POST DODATHOTA, SULLEA TALUK
D-f( DlSTR£CT
SUMANA F'RABHAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, I
WIO PRABHAKAR
NO 36, BANASHAMKARI NILAYA
4TH CROSS, 88K fl STAGE,
KADERENAHALLI BANGAUJRE 560 976;
THE SECRETARY,_ '
LAND TRIBUNAL S£Jt.i._lA
cm msmncr
THE sEcR£:rARY----<aov*s__oF 'K5R%NaJ5su:VooR VELLAGE,
P.o'a<ua<Ku.;AoKA, SULUA TALUK
" D K m;STR€JCT-5?4212
fa nN'jKR£SHNA KUMAR
- 'SIQSUBRAYA am:
MAJOR, mm: srones,
AMARA MUDNOOR VILLAGE'
'V - T3 O KUKKUJAHKA, SULLIA TALUK
D.K MSTRICT-574212
LE£.AVATH£ TEAHCER
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
IN THE HIGH CQHRT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE VJ.P.NO.26319 OF 2005
IN "HIE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. \V_P.N0.268l9 OF N05
-3-
JAYANAGAR, P.O SULUA
BK {}iSTRlCT--~57421 2
7 sum BHAT N
33.3291 7:2, "SUVISMITHA" _ V
CHANDRIKA LAYOUT. NETHAJEE x *
sue:-man CHANDRA BOSE ROAD, KA9R£ VKAMBLA 9 " ~ ~
BEJA£,MANGA1.0RE-04 .
(BY SRWABIGA SHIVANANDAF'-'PA, HCGP 1'~'c;s.z_ R1 3." V' V
SRl.KM.NATARA..¥ ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R4, R5, R6 AND R? ARE SERVED)
THIS WP. 13 FILED UN AR'HCLsfES ARD 227 OF THE
CONSTITURGN OF NDIA, PRAYING TC! THELOARQER PASSED BY
R1 LAND REFORMS TR¥BUNAi. AT SULLIA '{Q., D.K;"£?$l LR'y*:£839l74-75 DT.
29.8.79 GRANT£NG OCCUPANCY R!GH'l"'!'.Q SR!cRAMA»N{$lKA THE R3 WDE
ANNEXA. TO THE WRBT 1:
mas w.P. ciommts.¢5i~&"Fcei'ti$§isLIs:::ésA:§"{ HEAR!NG N *3' emu?
'£1-us DAY, TH£v¢QpRI_a'1Ac:;"--3_Tg§E
These l$5i'i§icfiérs cfciming to be c the tegat
:g5grmn:;tex:es Smt. Parameswariamma
wlc questioning the cwrectness of the
TV viirapugnéti 'Hated 29"' August 1979 passed by the
Tribunal, Sutlia in proceeding No.
granting the occupancy right in favour
IN 'I"HE RIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.NO.268l9 OF 2905
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. WP.NO.2IS8i9 OF 2995
-4»
of 3"' respondent in respect of the land in quesfion,_4vh§a%.r;e~
prwented this writ petition.
2. The third respondent claimirlgto
respect of the lands in question had
registration of occupancy tlefore~ Vfirejt
respondent- Land Tribuna£:$ulIla;”‘ reeperifldent.
Land Tribunal, Sullia, are and after
following the under the
relevant tlfie Act, and in the
light of available on
file, has registered file rights in favour of third
respondent e..holdiiig_V_VV: the request of the landowner
‘for’ en has been considered and matter was
V adjourned the land owner was not present
and the basis of due materials available on
has passed the impugned order. Being
.e§grieved by the impugned order passed by the first
IN ms. meg COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE w3>,1szo.2sa19 or 2005
IN THE HIGH CO{}’R’£’ OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. W.P.N0.26819 OF E065
-3,
communicatidn, requesting for adjournment stating thgat
her mother had gone to attend family
1412,1977» The said applications subrhittedfizay
moiher of the petitioners the 6″‘ res’pdndsni’,
red ink page Nos-3.23 and 33 rem % ¢r:ganatt’r r
records. Further, after microséstiic evsiustisri
original records it had
produced several receipts fer.:hsv§riVgf.:psid..tf»1s_–!svy and the
said receipts arei: if}. at red
ink page third respondent has
produced paid the assessment of
vv4.rsyenl¥»§,,’§u3:;’.g~ Vv atudredfl ____ page Nos. 12 to 32. Third
risprir1dent_v’hasv..s?’iso produced the receipts in Form No.11
Viikamr-ztaka Food and Civil Supplies
_.j_.’_j3.4Carporatio;t”:i_imited which are in his name, for having
the food grains which was grown in the land in
‘jdt:sstion by the 3′” respondent at ink page Nos. 2 to 10.
” ‘Fixrlttmer it is pertinent tofégthat, after giving sufficient
IN Tiif-I HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W_P.N(,’}.££6829 GP 21305
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. WP.NO.36819 OF 2905
-9-
opportunity to the land owner» Smt. Parameswariemrrre..V_
and to her daughter, 6″‘ respondent, and
due procedures, the first rmpondentg-Larid”‘v”‘iiribii’ria’_i;_
Sullia, has registered the occupanoy’l%ri§,rhte
third respondent. Not righting aiiiejhfgthy order
Tribunal is not a ground’ for “riot a
speaking order. V has
conducted the ae: die relevant
provisions of Flules and as to
whether en a conducted on the
application fiiediby on the basis of the
:_l.’relevan?§’;rna_t:erials ‘airaii–et3le on file has to be looked into.
of-ase, after microscopic evaluation of
of’ records available on file as referred
it emerges is that, third respondent has
substantial documentary evidence to establish
was cultivating the said land as on 1.3.1974 and
said land is vested with the government and dwerefore,
%”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.NO.268l9 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. W33.}*¥O-268 19 OF 2605
-11-
submission made by learned counsel appearing
petitioners is liable to be set aside at threshoid.__;”‘i-iei(ing”w«’ i
regard to the facts and circumstances of the 3″ i
stated above, the writ petition filed :;_:A
to be dismissed at threshold as”devoid of
7. For yet another by
petitioners” is liable to be costs
is on the ground iofdeiay order
has been fisirspssent. Land Tribunal ,
sunia. aseariy on fiugust 1979 and time
petitioners never’ this writ petition on 15″‘
andfiwere is an inordinate delay of nearly
the said inordinate delay has not
been by the petitioners satisfactorily by
sogent and valid reasons, except making a
statement that fiwrey are also interested parties
T ‘:’1.snd’they have not been notified and they have got their
_’_’____,___,,,._…….——u.
share in the joint family prfity. In View of not expiaining
in THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.N0.263l9 or 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. WP.NO.268i9 OF 3305
-12-
the inordinate deiay satisfactorily by the petitioners
assigning cogent reasons, the instant writ petitio_n:’_:fiie§d_’
petitioners is liable to be dismissed umegscsgzndi at j
delay and lashes also.
3. For the foregoing ‘fe§sons,A”‘flje’
petition flied by petmonerg is aésdeuéid of
merits and also on the ‘Q?
{N THE HIGH CQIIRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.N0.268I9 OF 2065