BIL I WEEN:
1.
- 1 _
IN TH E E'"IIGI*¥ COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN(}ALORE_E
DHARMADHIKARI, '
IBELTHANGADY TALU2«:._L»..K'.-- "
c§iAN9R;AsHEF;zL*2 'Ks/0 (:_H'rNNAPPA
AGE!) .53 YRs;,._» " " _ -- .
R/AT AMARA MU.DNUT'{,VI~I.LAGE
PC)STD.Kf'--- '
$s;U'DHAKAR/O CHANGAPPA GOWDA
._' AGE.D 62 11111
. R,/A'15KAE~E_CHIT}-I()TA I--IOSUE
" 3Arv1PA._ns: KOONAIJAKA POST
-.T-1s13:;1;mx'r.rxfL1;*K D.K.
A C,_N'm§;rx§'ANA
8/.0" CHAN(}A1->PA GOWDA
AGES 62 YRS.
" '=-1-3;'/AT KANCi~iITI~I()'I'A HOUSE ,
V " SAMPAJE KOONADKA POST
SULLIA TALUK D.K.
M" BALAKLRIS}--IN1~\ GOVVDA
SINCE DEAD BY LR
M. RJAYARAM.
/O M.BALAKRiSHNA ('}()WI)A,
ACEED 58 YRS"
-2-
R/AT N0.14(), HKRISPINA NAGARAM
5"" CROSS, 1.5"' E-'1"iASE, J.P.NAGAR
BANGALORE 78.
C HENNAKESHAVA
S / O 'I'}-}IM1VlAP"PAG OVVDA
AGED 60 YRS..
R/AT SERKAJE, SULLIA F'C.)S'§'
D.K.
VENKAPPA GOWDA S/O IJ3A13U:=.g1OW}§.A " - ' '
AGED 56 YRS.
R/AT SERKAJE - V
SULLIA POST D.K.
HONNAPPA GOWDA s/0 sE--i~IvANNA GOVVQA,
AGED 55 YRS, ' 5 . V.
R/AT ADDAMAGAR HOUSE_ 7 ._ .
AJJAVARA VILLAGE AVND_PQs{r
SULLIA TALujK.1).K.3" "
1mvINQrumA'fi.~1A 'V 1.;
s/{f)":i*HAé?A
AGED .58 YR:?3.«~,.._ ' ' '-
R/AT KOINGODT
POST SQIJIJIAVVD-'iK1' . " APPELLANTS
{By ': Q BAL.z=J:;RISH:$JA SHASTRY, ADV)
K A. ..... ..
_S'RIV'L\IAi?.AYA:'§IA RAD (SINCE DECEASMD)
._ BY "P-'IISv.,LI:«3(§3'AL, REr>.Ii3Y AN 1') HES WIFE
A VSMT _YA3HODA, AGED 65 YERAS,
"re /Afr N-EAR Ci-1I?,rsINAKI«;sHAvA TEMPLE.
SULLEA VILLAGE, SULLLA. 'FM.UK D.K.
.. ,BI+:11x.-'-G REPRES{<LTNEI) BY HER
HPOVVEZR OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
V' SR1 PARAMESHWARA IIOLLA,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA HOLLA
AGED ABOUT 40 YRS,
R/A I3()I}UBAiLU lJK.[\I~4f\$()(}I2. ViLI;A{}}'C,
SU LLIA TALU K.
- 4 -
acres 50 cents in Sy.No.2i6~2A/1A of Suilia, Kasaba Village,
Suilia Teiluk. The Tribunal earlier had granted occupancy
rights only to an extent of '74 cents and the san1e_..was
trtialierigetl in W.P.No.3323/1983 and thereafter
was passed by the land tribunall confirming the earlier ~
and aggrieved by the same LRAA._I\§o.,1_{)/1987
which was dismissed and again
filed and the same was all0weci':Q'r;--.1.9V'98V aIi'{:l'Ati'iie...rnatterh
was remitted to the tribune} arit_li:"'e:_Llirectio:i«.wes given to
obtain a survey report aVft'erV:i'1ssL:;ing 'riotiee to both the parties
and that survey shonid eonducted presence and
further to n0'te.,litowrfjytixell'eittent in occupation of the
petitioner]appiic.ant:;\~~ after getting the report of
the su.rveyor,"~.the la11clA'~i.jri"b..g-inai vide the order impugned in
" '~ ,ti1e *._2'i/'i'3'«.:'.t; p_Tetition. {.ltiE.t){f....17.4.2003 ecmferreci ocezipancy rights
i1i,.t'ai»roiir__of 'the"a.ppiicant/writ petitioner to an extent of 74
ee'nt..s',W re;'ect,ed his application for grant of
j occuiaetieyy rights in respect, of 1 acre 58 cents.
A' being aggrie.ve(:l by the rejection of the claim of the
wpi4t':"pt2t:itj0i'1er to the exte.i1t of E acre 58_ cents, the writ
'p'eiit:ion was filed by the 1*" respondent herein arid it was
coriterided that the tribi..1na.i has not considered the
ACT?
‘< ,2
'e_ K. 3
\. Y'???
\.
-5-
contention of the parties and has also not considered
whether the punja land was brought. wider; <:ult.tvation and
wherefore, the order of the tribunal was liable to he set asitle
and petitioner is ehtitletl to eonferrnent of occu1.3ane3f
in respect of 1 acre 58 cents also along with ':74 cerfcs ofVia.l"1d–o *
which is already granted by the '.Fribu_nal.__
4. The petition was resisted’ by” the”».resoon{l:ér:1tsi(_’
contending that after reman(l”of'<-the ease' by in
WP.No.3323/ 1983 a surveyor was asfiper the
report the land eorntirisetl' int,S3;j_.l\lo'.'*2'lv.6¥2A/ IA of Sullia,
Kasaba tfillage; apun}'.a"land and basing on the
same they tribt11'}all'hfasVproeeedecl" to pass the order rejecting
the claim olfthhe.vpetitionerzapplieant to the extent of 1 acre
' 5. :?l°he:Vh'lear1'1e(l single judge after hearing the parties
frelc§."_tI'ia't. th,o11g'i2.–vé1 survey report has b(?€I1'0btaiIl()(i as per
_ the (.'£i._reCti'oniissued by this court in Wl'.No.3323/ .1983 and
Vinvyiew of "the observations made in the survey report. it is
_t:I,ear lhzlt. land was got converted during the year 1.982 on
Vb l. 1982 and the question as to whether on 1.3.1974, the
relevant (:late, the land was being cultivated by the applicant
in respect: of 1 acre 58 cents aiso is not considerecl by the
!
'I'ribu11a.I and therefore. set aside the order of the Tribunal
insofar as it relates to rejection of the claim of the petitioner
to the extent, of 1 acre 58 cents in Sy.No.216/2A;*J1:A._<»_of_
Sullia. Kasaba Village, Snllia Taluk and .
remanded the matter to the '1"ribunal withJa'"direction'gto
dispose of the matter within a period, of six}:noenths"froin'~I;1'1e;;A
date of the receipt of the order; it Being Eaggfrieveiivlliya the
order passed by the learned single 'fiiclge resbontlentsg 1. 3 to
10 and one Sri.M.B.Jayaraim, "not'a,party before the
learned single judge, i1ave_preferre_d
6. There s_is”a.t.i:’dela§z of the appeal.
Heard the iearned’ClJiinse’l–tor–the parties.
7. 4’cpm§é:e1 appearing for the appellants
veliterzieritly argiied ithai:_as per the direction issued by this
eoii.r1._Viri / 1983 survey report has been obtained,
virhiehcwas “p»r_epared after ordering notice to the parties and
_ in their preseinee and wherein it is stated that 1 acre 58
,eents_ of land is punja iand, which is not cultivable and was
_ -_notiiispossession of the applicant as 21 tenant on l..3..I9′}’4
‘ ” -and the said land to the extent of 1 acre 58 cents has been
” converted by order dated 28.1.ii.1982 and the learned single
judge was not justifiecl in proceeciing on the basis that it is
(,4
xfih
7:..’.h<""'°"
4, ‘3
HI 7 ..
for the owner to prove that” the land was converted for non
agricultural purpose and the learned single judge was not
justified in setting aside the order of the tribunal insofar as it
relates to rejectiori of the claim of the writ ‘petitioner
extent of 1 acre 58 cents and wherefore, the orderis llialiic .
be set aside. The learned Counsel for thee”: also
Ii’ 7 . .
submitted that the learned single:’..:_ju.d-gee.iicoiilhde iaot’ at
appreciated the material on record noncould el’1a=.'(e,giverf1 a
finding and thereafter rernanded*ri,xpllie_pmatterfli.vhich§ would
influence the order tl’18Vi:.!\llJ’0l1ltll l):elvl”p«2_1p_ss_pe’d.p by theutribunal
prejuciicially against the hi i
we haw”.._give’i’i._dearefiil consideration to the
eontentionsoflltheE.earned”‘_.Cour1sel for the appellants and
scrutinised the rnaterialvori record. The material on record
as per the directions issued by this court.
the”‘s_t;r\feyl”repeitwas obtained after issuing notice to the
V dd _ parties arid the basis of the said report the land tribunal
proceeded to confer occupancy rights to,the extent of 74
_lt:epr1t».<o-2 and has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner to the
..e_X..ter1t. of 1 acre 58 cerits in the same survey number
/'sy.No.21s/2A/1A of Suliia, Kasaba Village, Sullia Taluk. It
is clear from the perusal of the order passed by the tribunal
2 gr .
“‘a_,fsZ :7”
5
-3-
which was impugrieti in the writ petition that the order of the
1
tribunal re.jectir1g the claim of the zitpplicant/writ. petitioner
to the extent of 1 acre 58 cents is not based iipon___the
reasonirig and the order of the tribunal apaIft”».tfi*or’e_
mentioning the submissions of the learned ()O11i_1’f5′-(31 Afor.:”y:’iihe’v–.-_y’ ~
parties and cohteiits of the surveymMrep0rt_-“has::’_iailed”,to»r_v
consider as to whet.her the writ petitioi1e,:”was C!.iltiVating’i?he?1,i_’
{and as a tenant in respect ofsaid land as .}onh
1.3.1974 and wherefore, the orderei’ rerrianid by the
learned singie judge to –t._h}:_e;i;te:it.l.o~f_”l.”aere 58 cents is
justified and does not Sl1fA_f3f,:.fl”Of.flV..23:.li1y illegality as to
call for However, it is necessary
to eIa1’i.fyzthat_ any ohserya.ti0n4s_.made on merits of the ease of
the appiicant*«0r’vthe ‘res~§)bon–r’ient,s in the order passed by the
” ‘~ ._lt?ariie:€l jticige*ar.ti’1is order shaii not influence the iaiid
V.7._triht.i;ia,1~an:l;’the land tribimai shall independently consider
f
anti Ciisiiosefof tlie contention as to whether the applicants
[ (ront;e2ritioi’i that he was tenant over the extent of I acre 58
‘heenrits-._.ir1vSy.No.2.l,6/2A/1A of Sullia, Kasaba Village, Sullia
— strictly in accordance with iaw after appreciating the
” evidence adduced before it within months from the date
it of production of certiiierl copy of this order or receipt of this
order, whichever is (=.2u”iie1″, as {he time grzmted by the
Ie21r:1e(i single jucigc has alreeuly czxpirexl.
9. Since we hoid that writ: appeal is devoid..~o–§.’rfl(,§ritS ”
and since we Iiave corisidermi the appeal oIiV__r}’1’e.rits§_;”~it. is
utmeoessary to consider the appliczitionifiur’co1iI(l–ohi:”1g_Vthe
deiay. Accordingly, Misc:.W.6234/201vC:._io’dispoégé£;iof. ‘ iv
E0. Accordingly, tho writ. a§w.po”a£_is..g1ispos€d._Qf)i§rith the
above said observations.
sdli.
i Iudge
Sdfifi
Iudqe
Vi