_ VBanga'3g§ré North Taiak,
Represémgd nyits «««««
'~.Secfeia_ry Tahsildar.
: VV -- S/o. Bfiatiu Dasagzpa.
. 2(3). S{i.M.Srinivas,
s'2'--:::_. L_aé'A.Marithémma£ah,
" ..R!¢;.Ne.'9, Paiace Guttahalli
'Mair; Rcad,
'~.Béhind Corporation Cuivert,
' A ~ Maileshwaram,
in THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA, 8ANGALORE' "'._V_
DATED THIS THE 4*" DAY or NOVEMBER,2Gfi8' Q :7 _
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICEZ=.§f|.B!!;i,;53Ai?¥'?}I§._ % ;
WRIT PETITION N%o_g74&o';g0__g§
BETWEEN: L
Smt.A,V.Radha Devamma, _ ._
W/o. late A.G.Venkataramaiah .;Setty,V
Aged about 72 years, . I
Rfat. No.12, Lakshm«iA._VNEvas§ I
3"' Cross, Mune_s\;1;araLB_3ock,.
Bangaiore«56G€'0O3';*~. V " > .. _ A P'££T!TiON ER
(By Sri.S.§J;'S%1a¢.=;iifi, fc.:?'F?etr)'.*
AND: L A %
1. The Land T:'*i.'ou'fia¥V
2.% Mia5rithifi1%éi§aiaii",_"*""
Since cieceased' by LR.
L/%
" '~ V7 ..... it
"._that«the tend in qtgeetion was converted in the year 1932Aa:1d it
_righte'~,in tavotiri of the second respondent is iliegai and
‘ iti7.”‘thetteforei ‘it:cennot be sustained in law. He aiso submitted
. t:hat_Vti2-eitiieeoond respondent was not the tenant and the land in
‘::’_4:eeeetion is situated withia the Municipal limits and therefote, it
‘oannot be an egriouitural tend. Further he submitted that the
4. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed thiswrit
petition,
5. in brief, the facts are, the petitioner_’eieinie,::
husband iate A.G.\/enkataramaiah
Qantas of land in Sy.No.9 of Jaigttasandra
sate deed dated 17-9-1971 from
husband was out in question was
not the tenanted”‘_i4eoid7Iend-ltherefereijtfifanting of occupancy
righté in favour ‘of fi*i3’« second ‘r’eep’ondentAie iiiegal and
therefore, this writ petiti-one.» V’ ‘ ” r
6;.’ ‘V _The ieamed to-ouinsei for the petitioner contended
evai’iovoitijVraii’ tend and therefore granting of cecupancy
i/
v4..v.{lf!eantt1{i’:jj.’ oi the V”Acti.:H %%%%% He therefore submitted that the
‘*i{hpu’g»n_ei:i..v_erdeficemot be sustained in law. He also
en recerd proper perspective and therefore, the impugned
_ ejrder’ioaenVet be sustained in law. He also submitted that, the
__ i-deiayilinifiling the writ petitien has men prepetty explained and
it ‘ A “theiefore, the writ petition can be entertained.
decisions of the Civil Court are not binding on the
Placing reliance on the decision of this Court
1979(1) KLJ Page 307 he submitted ihatthe not Q t
bound by the decree or order passed :by the
can investigate the genuinenese’of”‘*~any clatih on hie it
also placed reliance on the.decisio%nV’jA’ef_ this Couittteptiirtw in
1979(1) KLJ Page 412 tovc’o.tite.hdt_ question is
not an agriculteral’_lan_d the Municipal
limits and the area area; placing reliance
on the deeisi.or3″‘eff 1989(1) KLJ page 54
he submitted*.thatVl’t’iiej on the second respondent to
shew that th’e.__landV” ciaims is a land within the
suibeiittediiinbunal has failed to consider the material
g
7. As against this, the learned oounsei for the
. .
second respondent submitted that since 1955 the titigatiori».:¢:s._V_
going on and in ail the proceedings, the
contended that the second respondentmis a terrant’li’end~:::the it
Sand in question is a tenanted land end
opened for the petitioner to contend;«–t_he termite
an agricultural land. Further he that Court in
RSA.No.374f1970 has mitigating and decree
passed by the trialeeourti.-end court in
O.S.No.483l6£§_ the land in
question is an submitted that We,
Aziz and proceedings against the
second respondent for eaéiotion and also for recovery of rents.
He aleéf ‘Veubmittedi.V_.Vthat niprooeedings have been initiated
the respondent for resumption of land under
the ~.proeieiong..__ of””.Lend Reforms Act and therefore, the
oetitioeef eannot contend, the land in question is not an
‘a;ericuit;;raVi”‘land. Further he submitted that the matter was
e~enteeted by the petitioner and hear some before the Tribunal,
L/–~
kg”
9. l have carefully considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties.
K), The point that arises for my corteidelriaitlohii
whether the impugned order cells for interference? .; « g It ]
11. lt is relevant to note; the ;l”rl_hunat hee
occupancy rights, in favour of theeeeeond
Marithimmaiah, on the gtound;a_the:_’A and
the second respondent wee as tenant.
The learned that the land
in question wee has not vested in
the State; land in question was
converted in__the yearA3.ti.’j§r9S2_:”:’iteelf. therefore, it is not an
agriculterat ianctf is idifiltcutlts to believe this,” for the reason,
it_;hough’t’€h§:,,,’ggetjtiqner her sons have contended, the tand
:5 eoeetilonEs.r§etV”.art1~’agricultural land, they have not produced
anything to_1v’st:oiwhthat the land in question was converted in
year %1e:%;2 itself. Therefore, the Tribunal has new, the
peiit_ioeer and her sons have failed to prove that the land in
9/
question was a converted land. On the other
Tribunal taking into consideration Lye proceedings initivavitiecijfl
before the authorities for eviction anti’ recctzery of §4iee%ne.,ihes
held, the iand in question is a tenanted__
respondent was cultivating the tenxantn’ it réisvsntto
note, Mls. Aziz and company rntas’sii§n%:tii§;ted proceedings in
T.C.No.59/’58~59 eerore tnietansiiear rstsenction and it has
been aiiowed. ThereLefler;:A__AVe”neeai tiied and it has
been a”°W9d5 The revision filed
before tn7e7KA’fT vienfofivthe amendment to the
provisionsof hit is eiso relevant to note,
M!s.Aziz end’ i€3VoI_?tpan–y,iAn_es”‘initiated proceedings against the
respondent” ‘fofrecovery of rents and there is a
Vdiireotien :;}.;e§i’t!.:1;e”_1.rents. Apart from this, in Civii proceedings
L in smesezss and RSA 374170 it has been
“‘~..«.i_’__neid, the” .ir-ind in question is an agricuiturai land. Therefore,
‘ 7frii’A3funai has heid, the tend in question is a ténanted iand
‘ gnzjisecond respondent was cuttivating the tend as tenant and
fconsequentiy has granted occupancy rights. i do not finci any
V