Nijalingappa S/O Basappa … vs The State Of Karnataka By Its … on 27 August, 2010

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA   

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUG§I§fS'F"£2fQ:1 _
PRESENT' %   V

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1r:E, ~i\I4.AI°'I,_.PA"f'I'£'," 

WRIT PETITION N0..;52o'es_()'F 209'} '(L33  :1
BETWEEN:   M % A M

1. Ni'a.1ir1gappa      *
S/0 Igasappa Malagondgi'  
Died by his L.Rs:  _  '

{a} Basappau    
S/0 Nijal1'ngap'pa  ~

Occ: :Agriéuli.:1re,"i.4  _
R/0: E3eera1adin:niL,VM   .
Tq: Basava1V1a'Bagewad.i', " " 

Dist: Bij&i}:1¢Iu1é1".. ._   ...PETITIONER
(isyisix/;"i'D   SBABSHETTY, ADV.)
1. h The  Karnataka
Bytits Sec~1"e'tary,
' V _ Reven ue_ Department,
 ,   M,s.Bu:1d:ng,
 Bafigalore --- 560 001.

 H  The Land Tribunal
 "-Basavana Bagewadi,

¢4.,....,



 

 

Dist: Bijapur.

3. Appasaheb
S/O Raosaheb Desai
Died by his L.Rs:

a) Bharatraj

S / o Appasaheb Desai

Age: major,   
Occ: Agriculture 1

b) Sharatraj

S/O Appasaheb Desai
Age: Major,

Oce: Agriculture

Both R/0: Aalmatti,  0 _ '     
Now residing at Bijapugf, _  ' -. _  .;,R_ESI{'0NDENTS

(BY sR1.sI4~IiivM:tI;I§/IAIfgTITNOLIA;ADV FOR R-1 0; R2,
SHIVAYOOII/IATH*AssOeIATEs, ADV FOR R--3{A) 3:

THIS "'»'fRITEf"~PETOIT.I'ON FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
THE CONsTITUTION  INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
TI-IE ORDER*DA'I'El3_ 10.04.2000 PASSED BY R-2 LAND
TRIBUNAL "VIBE ANNEXUREMJ TO THIS WRIT

   ..... 

   "WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR

 pRI§LINIIIT,ARy* HEARING -13 GROUP, THIS DAY, TI-IE

CQURT.  THE FOLLOVVING:
0 R D E R

0'  The petitioner, questioning the correctness and

" Wlflegality of the impugned Order dated 19.04.2007 passed

A/«

 

 



 

Reforms Act, without affording reasonable.loppgorthunity

to the petitioner, who is none other  

original petitioner.

3. Heard the learn_e'rl_ counsel fore-.jthejjetitioner,

and learned counsel appearing _f'or_theresp.ondents.

4- The  No.7 for
registration:   View of the non
Conduct  vrithout there being an
opportunlitjrrof petitioner, the petitioner felt

necessitated to[prlesen't__igtl1ils petition.

 Aufter"e'are.fui perusal of the order passed by the

R   what it emerges is that, the Land

'Tribunal committed a grave error, material

 irregularity without proper enquiry under Rule 17 read

it it "v§1'th~«_Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. As a matter. of

 fact, it is the duty cast on the Tahsildar, being the

 custodian of the land revenue records to verify as to

A/

 



 

 

who is cultivating the land, whether it is the owner or
the tenant, as on 1.3.1974. The second respondent has
failed to follow the due procedure which is 

under the relevant provisions of the Land-'..hRfefo1trn:

and Rules and decide the same'strir:t1y"_4pe\(e'nV'V:whe11:'A'the

8 'Act V

parties have not produced copy  irecordflof 

verify who is the person cuititratingvh the  the

date of 1.3.1974, whether or thet'en'ant. The

tribunal has failed to    fact but held
that the land.   and vested on
the goVerrtrr1e;nt':A."'as.. This aspect of the
mattelcisdiv  order impugned.

Therefore, 'I«.aV1n-  'o0:f1'si.dered view, at any stretch of

imagillatiorif such." a non-speaking order cannot be

 V' "vsus'tr_ainahle'i-and to be set aside at the threshold.

  'V  regard to the facts and

g circunistances of the case, we pass the following:

 



1}

iii]

ORDER

Writ petition is allowed in part

The impugned order dated

passed by the Land Tribunal

‘J’ is hereby set asides”

The matter stands remitted.

Tribunal for “fresh evens-ider;at~iion.,o fafter_l:>

affording reasonalojla ‘QI310orti1nity_f? to the
petitioner to decide the

matter striietlyiiinjl with Rule 17’

“‘r’e_ard:iV~w1§thflseetion of the Land Revenue
” decided’ t’ne…s’a1ne as expeditiously as
it ._ six months from the date of

~. receipt do-fllaeertified copy of this order.

Sflii
fudge