" V' '-PEF}TI()'NF3R_ NO. I . ...PETITI(N15:I:s
ADV. , )
» CARE/"BY ITS SECRETARY To
" 'REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA ' "
DATED THIS THE am DAY OF FEBR1}AR§T';--~2'Q I61: _f"
BEFORE
'I'I~IE HONBLI53 MRJUSTICE MOTLAN
WRIT PETITION NQ.2"036'DIf'*:2o06i:.RI %
BETWEEN: V V M
1.SMT.NIRMALA, _ A. I
W/() GOUDAPPAGOUDA.i?A*f1L;' 'I
AGED 29 YEARS,
occ. AGRICIJLTI_}RE=:Al\i;D.
H H WORK. AT ;éQIs"T MASDTI, 1;' V
TQ. BASAVAIWBAGEZWADI,' '
DIST. ., A
2. NACIAMIOUDA, * I
S / 0 G0IIDAI>PA(:QIID_A"IIATIL,
AGED :3 YEARS,' - Q I'
MINOR, I23'/I:3Y'III*s GUARDIAN
AN 'NATURAL 'M QTHER
I. VISTATT: OF KARNATAKA,
Ix.)
M S BUILDING.
BANGALORE W 1.
2. THE {AND TRIBUNAL.
BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
RE/BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
DIST. BIJAPUR.
3. SR1 SHEKAPPA MOTHER AD}'V"E3V'JA,".4' } V'
HOLER@ DODAMANI, '
AT/POST MASUTI-H, e
TQ. BASAVAN BAGEwAoI,.=""" -
DIST. BIJAPUR. A%';t.e,4Rt:spoNoENTs
(BY SR1 1\/IALLI¥iARJUN..:SAHUItTAR';HéCi3' FOR R1 &
R2: SMT. K 1mc:;AVE:sII. Am/'.-..V FIDR VR3}
V"1'1ié'v.I%;;t Pe:':mor;.AV£s file-E1"'i;1nder Articles 226 3: 227
of t11e:__Co11stit.'tstio3'1Aof-.Ifid.ia. -'praying to quash the order
dated 25. 1 .2006'paSsed' Case No.LRM/CR/447/2002
by the prodtuced .3,1o;1gwith the writ petition as Anx.
D and etc.)
This"--petittoffeoming on for hearing this day, the
»A :(VJouVrt, made' following:
ORDER
E .. (i):.1ev Sri Nagazagotlda and his brother
A i(V};ifiyappagoL1da jointly filed form No.11 deeiaring their
holding under the provisions of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act. ‘1’ he Land Tribunal by the order dated
9.7.1979 held that said NeigaiigotzdalBand
Giriyappagouda held 82 acres 7′ gnntas in _
ceiling limit. It is relevant to no»te>here”itese.Ii’~.1,hat’;said’*
Sri Nagangouda is father in :1p€fiVfiOne,1_’}
Pursuant to the order~..of the”Laind:’i’ribuna1′;’ the alleged
excess lands were orderedi’V’to5vbe._ilVVested in the State
Governrnent; aii.d1″consegu~en’t1y” -t_’he__’_exeess lands were
disposed of it-i’_faVoi1r’ofj«six–.hen.efi’eiaries under Section
7? of warms Act.
2. order of the Land Tribunal, Sri
No.15652/81 before this Court
‘ rw’r1iehv._yVas«vtVa1’iowed and remanded to the Land Tribunal
After remand the Land Tribunal once
again. that the petitioners’ family was in excess of
A 7 guntas by the order dated 03.12.1991.
4
Father in law of the petitioner No.1 filed WP.
No.4237/1992, which came. to be dismissed. However.
the husband of the first petitioner and his uncle
Giriyappagouda filed WA. No.79/1996 which came to
be allowed and the rnatter was remitted
Tribunal. Thereafter the Tribunal held
and passed an ord.er:”holdir1g”tjhat petitioners family
is holding the land tollanl 8 guntas in
excess of order dated
t7é:’£;lil]Lff1l(5r1«6?=l.1:”:l:’sllll’sL1t1’rendered the excess
in favour of the State
Government. — V ll
‘V31 When” facts stood thus the third respondent
»lVft11–»=:_t1 .tlx ?s/l’«..i1~*..u,l:v”‘Np.46s26/2002 on the ground that his
H has filed form No.7 for grant of
rights in respect, of Sy.No.224 measuring 31
2 iacres guntas. situated at Masuti village and that the
said application is pending consideration. According to
him till the application filed by his mother Adivevva in
form No.7′ is disposed of, the Tribunal should
passed orders on the application filed in
the petitioners’ family. The said pS__Vp.No.22-‘<1' of the" it
lands owned by the petitioners' ;'fan';'i1y;r' 1t._i's~ ;€=e1,ev[%ant*~::z;o
note that W.P. Nc).45828/'2'O():fi-.:'}tras._pfiietd'"by"the third
respondent without ',:the_':p.petitioners. This
Court dispose'd:.gojf on 08.04.2003
directing the application in
form respondent. While
passing the this Court observed
thusa, x L
A rjon éfdéf dated 10.2.2003 this Court
:.4"dir'ected the Tahsildar to verify the
A file an affidavit, as to whether
an application is filed by the
it pe:tit1oner's mother. In pursuance of the
said direction, one Sri Basappa Malappa
iii}
'xi
thygevit responder1t's mother has filed form No.7.
The.2Lafiti,,n__'i5fi'oi,1na1 ultimately has held that the third
Sys..No.2224 measuring 31 acres 34 guntas.
6
Kambhavi. the I)epui.y Tahsildar has filed an
affidavit dated 27.2.2003 stating that, there
is no entry in the Vi11age–varu Register–.__
pertaining to Masuti Village in respect”~-oef’f««.4»_2’~».
Sy.N0.224. ‘I’here is no reference with r.-
to the application filed by the
Hoiar. Masuti village,
Taluk. But the said affideivitfioes not
under what c1ro’:;VmstAai’iCes’; se}3reem-5} of
the Land has
issued notice 27]} the
peti1;ioI?_’1″e’r”‘}.:-ef.Vi.:mothe1*_to before him
along Witness on
4;’ Tribunal has passed the
impugned orcieéfléis per Annexure D on the assumption
res’ponder1t.’ shall be registe1’ed as occupant in respect of
1%: _,f”x-“…/’
% t
5. As observed by this Court in WP.
No.4~6826/2002 (disposed of on 8.4.2003}. the Deputy
Tahsildar has filed an affidavit. dated
swearing to the fact that the third _
has not filed form No.7 and that there is; no inthev
relevant register of the No.7}lV’
Pertaining to Masutrxgiilagc”‘i:–{;S§}1’Np.224;’-A Thus it is
amply clear that no by either of the
third responde’ritj0r is not
pending No.7′ was never filed
by anylaloldy 2fl:2-4. However, the third
respondent notice allegedly issued by the
Land .,Tribii:i_a1’dhate’ti 1.1978 to contend that the
:,,”1″es’pondentl’sllv mother has filed form No.7.
third respondent, if really form No.7
was not the Tribunal would not have issued notice
dated 1 1. 1978.
9
7. Plaving regard to the above. the submission
made by Sri S S P-atzil. learned advocate for the
petitioner that the notice dated 27.1 1.1978 in fact is not
issued by the Land Tribunal. Basavanabagewadi,V_b_ut is
created by third respondent to suit his
assumes importance. Even assuming
notice is really issued._by tl1’erib”u.nall llthee same does
not bind on the No.7 was
really never. of argument
learned No.3 also fairly
concedes filed in respect of the
land bl.I-~lVlasL1ti village measuring 31
acres 34 in view of the above the Tribunal is
-‘ in granlting occupancy rights in favour of
third merely on assumption and merely on
basi~s:v7′(i*t7lt.11e copy of the alleged notice said to have
Abeenllivsdsued by the Tahsildar dated 27.7.1978. Hence
–..Vt1h.e.l.uimpugned order is liable to be quashed.
majority. Such an observatioii is wrong inasmuch as
the decision is not passed by the majority. On the other
hand the members of the Land Tribunal were zéyeirraily
divided while Coming to the Conclusion. 011
also the order of the Land Tribunal is e_yedof–.
law.
9. As aforemen’r–i.o;1ed–_ no form No.7
flied by anybody the :T1″ib-final will’ jurisdiction to
pass orders in respect of that
is quashed. Wrii. petition is
aflowed. 2 d
,, …..
JUDGE