Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 383 (KAR)

MAIRIYAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2000-06-07

N.S.VEERABHADRAIAH

body2000
N. S. VEERABHADRAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE Counsel for the revision petitioner absent. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri D. L. Shivkumar, Government Advocate. ( 3 ) THIS is the rival tenant's revision being aggrieved of the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in case No. LRA. 36 of 1988 setting aside the order of the land Tribunal ordering vesting of the land with the State. ( 4 ) THE brief facts are as follows: the land bearing Survey No. 2 situated at Bintravalli Village, Koppa taluk, measuring 3 acres is endowed to the deity of Hanumantha devaru. In respect of the said land, the revision petitioner's husband kusa Poojari filed Form 7, whereas the respondent 2-Narayana Shetty also filed application for grant of occupancy. The Land Tribunal, Koppa granted occupancy in favour of Narayanashetty to the extent of 2 acres 13 guntas by rejecting Form 7 of Kusa Poojari on the ground that Kusa poojari has filed Form 7 after the date notified i. e. , on 16-9-1990. The said order was questioned before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority by the wife of Kusa Poojari. The Appellate Authority on considering the relevant entries having rightly come to the conclusion that Kusa Poojari was a tenant as on the appointed day. But on account of the fact that the application filed was belated one rejected the claim and also set aside the order of the Land Tribunal by ordering vesting of the land to the state. It is this order which is now under question. ( 5 ) THOUGH the matter was unrepresented on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate justified the order of the Appellate authority as the Form 7 filed by Kusa Poojari is a belated one and accordingly prayed to dismiss the revision. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, Kusa Poojari has filed an application as required under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Form 7, but the claim was rejected only on the ground that it was belated one. The Land Reforms act was enacted for confirmant ownership on tenants. The same being a social legislation from time to time amendments were brought in for the benefit of the tenants. The Land Reforms act was enacted for confirmant ownership on tenants. The same being a social legislation from time to time amendments were brought in for the benefit of the tenants. Like that one such amendment brought in is section 77-A enabling the tenants to file application before the Deputy commissioner who have not filed an application well-within the prescribed period for confirmation of occupancy in question. In that view of the matter, the right accrued to the tenant cannot be deprived only on the ground that the application is highly belated in view of the insertion of Section 77-A. Therefore, the application which was filed by the revision petitioner can be construed or converted into an application filed under Section 77-A (ii) of the Land Reforms Act, so that her remedy could be redressed by considering such an application by the Deputy commissioner who is competent to dispose of the matter. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY the order of the Appellate Authority is modified with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider Form 7 filed as one filed under Section 77-A and to dispose of the matter in accordance with section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act. With the said observation, the revision is disposed of. --- *** --- .