IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25*" DAY OF MARCH 2005' f _
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE H.v;G.EAMEsE1% D %
WRIT PETI'l'I()N No.2s945DL()E 2oosgL1§
Vittai fievappa Patii,
Since deceased by h_is4LR's_.,
Devakka", E _ ~ L
W/0 late Vina] 'flexrapga l"a__tilV, *7 ~
A ti-lgl "m
u. m ;?ears_."« _ V; _ AV _
Doc: HotisehDid,w(:1'i<;,.»A"~ _ '
W0 Kaiiehoi Vii'1agg3, ' ._ é
Taluk & District: Beigaum; _
'~ ..M3d.31li:: 1 .. _____ .. v
Sfalate 'ittalflevappa Patil,
Amman w...;~..-4-. _
l"'.[ gyfzxq, '~ 2
R/.o"K__allehD1.Vallvage,
Ta1u,k'& '1')ist-ri.ct:" Beigaum. ..PETI'!'!0NERS
' ~ '(By Sri.P.Pra_§anna Kumar for C.H..Tad'hav Associates, Advs.)
.,T.Hc State nfKamataka,
_ By its Secretary to Government
" Revenue Department,
M.S Building, Bangalore-560001 .
\},z,/
4)
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
""'"aum °'.:'==I)' II-.=i-'\
LJUIE 1-.) U' V naval
Belgaum.
3. Babu, S/o Ramu Patil,
Age: 40 years,
R./o Kallehnl Village,
Taluk & District: Belgaum. if :i;_ it
(By Sri.Nadiga Shivanandappa, for 3;
Sri.Kamal and Bhanu, Advs. for R-3). _ ii ' i
This Writ Petition filed Lieder} "226 and 227 of
the Constitution of ._India A.preying_..to.p q'uasli*~w.t}1e order dated
30.12.04 passed by' Alipeiiate "E:'ti'mina1 in Appea}
N'o.1.038/2003(_Rev) 5_(Beiga§urti Camp} iiide"'Atix.D, dismissing
the appeal and upiioldihg, the passed by the R2 in case
dated 12.3.03 vide"A:ix.B.., V *
Tl1i:§*W'rit on for preliminary hearing in
'B' Group tilis, day, the Court..:nade the foliowing:
i=--ogDER eeeee
fietitiojitirs have sought f')T to quash the (' uer 'tease
V --V by tlie Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the appeai
K it i' petitioners by order dated 30.12.04 vide Annexture
' upholding the order passed by respondent No.2 dated
V V and for such other orders. RV
2. According to the petitioners, the land bearing
Sy.No.387 ofliallehol Village of Belgaum Taluk measuring 10″:
acres 16 guntas is said to be their ancestral property and they “‘
n on 0111111: no f F an-run nnrenngnv ci-,’ rh:-05-nunrl Exeflni
IIIII\J IJYWUII Tlvlll-I VCOIAIIIE ‘HIE III’-III? Ff. IJ’Jll’JlI’,, IIITH ‘-‘€Y&Ia\–‘\l€’\nI ‘ INN’-all
Ti.” .-……. Du;-.l’.. nnnn ….. I_….¢-I…-_…. l…A 4-..l.-nu ,n Inn” At’ Dr! I Ann:
L! V yyil 1 aux a uuuaul un.II.uIiil unu uxlkul a II.) 9 uL.1\a I.,u.L_r’\Jt-
from the father of respondent No.3 and evieeijted a11″ag.reei’nent,
of sale in respect of 10 guntns of ini_:«and entire
strength of the same, the father his
name in the RTC as a étenantte the«e£ter1t 24 guntas
Beigaurn, earne to°be…ai.icrwed by order dated 7.10.03;
respondent’No.’3r:_”a:lse:’ ‘-said to have flied civil suit in
I Add]. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn._) Belgaum,
‘ :*9ekinI:i’~»fnr i_.j,1i21etion and deela a ’01:
‘ ‘. ‘ 4 I V – 1. I –
– ‘_ Ifr l”l’I’IFIQi”ll”\I”I 1’1′ Q l3I’I’I’ l’\ n I’IIII’I DE DHA 113 unit’! all
‘ . ‘I’uII\-I lCJJI\J fill ‘k~:\-‘IvA’dClIvIllII I«\l VII’! hlJ\U\fllIa Lil ..lI.I 5UII[UC&|J IJIIIJ lull’! L16!-IIJ Illalllv
* __’;-‘; ._ LE- .1:_..__:__…__|
uuIi.I.I_:”1″!.1._:3u ultmllssuu. A
t4″V.VVtfes}5ehdent No.3 never ciaimed as a tenant and never tried For
v
E
II.
11′
0.7, after the amendment to the Kamataka Land Reforms Act,
he filed Form No.7A claiming occupancy rights before
Assistant Commissioner to the extent of 2 acres 24 ‘i” V
the same was contested by the petitioners
evidence, however, the competent authoritvbfii an’-eVrroneous”«._.i”r
order, has granted occupancy rights..4L:ii’nt»thvour .of..re_s;iendent
appeai before the Karnataka Apipeiietei Trib{ir2ei’_’_.which aiso
came to be dismissedisvliile ¢onfirn1ingthe’order passed by 2′”
respondent. Hei3ee,’iith;i_s ‘
3. Heierdithei teernediiiiflouiisel for the petitioner, the
_leamed_§:lounsel tori’ contesting respondent No.3 and the
competent authority as well as the appellate
4i_’.i’vr_it:n:1n:}ii–.. shown to have not considered the case advanced by
pietitioners wherein one of the contention raised is that the
iii w [Either of the 3″‘ respondent had not filed Form No.7 for grant of
W
Us
occupancy rights and that he got entered his name in the
. 1 n n I u
behtnd the back ot t..e pe…,.ene.rs. agatns. .1-.rh:e.. .Rs…–~_
proceedings are pending before the Assistant eom’m__issiener.i’i T i
Further, the contention raised by the pefiitioners iethatiitherevv
nnfhino on shew the- the !e-_d hes eet_d4’with.. the .j;1Ier1iii:ieitti””
V4
-.
ent tta’ I ttte.._dpp}ie”tion
No.’7A by the 3″ respondenti–.a’nd al-than Ir not filed Form
Neil he was in possession eliltivtifim’~~i..9t””the land in
‘ i’: print” tr. 77′:
‘il
.t.::._.5
” l’.t’}_..l_9?3.-V” the ttlittg of For-“….
fets_._on
‘No.’7A. it _be_th offieer and the
appellate Tribune! exeept’ t1oting”that’ as on 01.03.1974 the name
of the 3″‘ respertdeit is s'”””n it’. he e”‘*iW firs
“‘eoium_n°1:.have not assigned 0 er reasons for reeetin the
iiclaitni iofiithedpetitieners and the entry of the name of the 3″J’
” reeno;ndent’s fate:-ii’i he 1?
-C is said. t- be behind the ba 1: o ‘
it petitioners against which there is said i’) he “r’teeedit”tgs
‘ before the Assistant commissioner. “Further nothing
‘haetbeen stated as ,o the payment of want and also regarding
rt 1
5. under the circumstances, petition is allowed avndo.
impugned order passed by rcsrondcnt No.2 vide A_nn§.”.;ré’Vj”–B -1- V
and awe toe order passed b” ulfi Kariiauus.’ Ap*iciiat€-:iiTriburnai
£I”‘\
vicio Annexurc ‘1)’ are quashed. “Tic rriattesifis’refiiitter;ii’bac}§’*to”‘ii.’
the competent officcr/rcspondciif”‘
accord:-…cc ‘….h law ans. auordi-ng op’*oi”c’iii’:j to mum we
pafiics.
…. _. _ l ‘
Bkp Sd.l”_
‘ 1′ ,- .1 avg
j £185’?