Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1327 (KAR)

Seetha@ Shakuntala v. State of Karnataka

2013-11-22

N.K.PATIL, R.B.BUDIHAL

body2013
Judgment : 1. The appellant, who was third respondent in the writ petition, has assailed the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.33750/2010 dated 22nd August 2012. 2. In the writ petition filed by third respondent herein, he had sought for quashing the order dated 17th November, 1979 passed by the second respondent -- Land Tribunal, Belthangady Taluk, in Case No.LRY.49/76-77 vide Annexure J to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, set aside the order passed by the I.and Tribunal only in respect of an extent of 27 cents in Sy.No.253/2 and left the remaining portion of the order undisturbed. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case in hand are that, the third respondent herein has contended that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land measuring an extent of 27 cents comprised in Sy.No.253/2 of Mundaje Village in Belthangady Taluk on the ground that he had purchased the said land ander registered sale deed, duly executed by the previous owner on 13th May 1976. Be that as it may, the appellant filed Form No.7, seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of 49 cents comprised in Survey No.253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluk. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, where the third respondent herein has mentioned the name of the vendor of the third respondent as the ov Tier in respect of the land in question and the Land Tribunal, without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act read with the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act, has registered occupancy rights in favour of the appellant herein in respect of the entire extent of 49 cents. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal, conferring occupancy rights on the appellant herein, the third respondent filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 33750/2010 and the said writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the said writ petition, holding that, as the third respondent is the purchaser of an extent of 27 cents of land and as he is recorded as owner and anubavdar of 27 cents in the revenue records produced by him at Annexure C arid D to the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, conferring occupancy rights in favour of appellant, only in so far as it pertains to an extent of 27 cents comprised in Sy.No.253 / 2 and left the rest of the order granting occupancy rights in respect of the remaining extent undisturbed and remanded the matter back to Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The said order has been passed by the learned Single Judge, by assigning valid reasons and recording a finding of fact at paragraph 6 of his order to the effect that the third respondent purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed from the previous owner on 13th May 1976 and the appellant has filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights on 31st December 1976, without thorough verification and intentionally and deliberately not impleaded the third respondent nor notified in the relevant column No.7. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri.N. Sukumar Jain, at the outset is that, the learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal to an extent of 27 cents in respect of Sy.No.253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluk. It is the specific case of the appellant, that she has been cultivating the said land since 1973 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question and the said land is vested in Government as on 1st March 1974. It is the specific case of the appellant, that she has been cultivating the said land since 1973 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question and the said land is vested in Government as on 1st March 1974. Therefore, the purchase made by the third respondent is null and void and cannot be sustained when the land has been declared as a tenanted land. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered nor appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of an extent of 27 cents. Further, he is quick to point out and submit that, there is inordinate delay in questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Land Tribunal before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in condoning the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and the writ petition therefore, ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches at the threshold itself. Therefore he submitted that, on these grounds, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be vitiated and the writ petition filed by the third respondent ought to have been dismissed as devoid of merits. 5. As against this, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for third respondent, inter alia sought to substantiate the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, stating chat the same is passed after due evaluation of the entire material available on file, by assigning valid reasons in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his order. Further, they submitted that the learned Single Judge is highly justified in setting aside the conferment of occupancy rights only to an extent of 27 cents comprised in Sy No.253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluk, for the reason that the said land has been duly purchased under a registered sale deed by the third respondent on 13th May 1976 and that the Form No.7 was filed by the appellant on 31st December 1976 for registration occupancy rights under Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act. But, the Land Tribunal, without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules has proceeded to confer occupancy rights in respect of the entire extent of 49 cents comprised in Sy.No.253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluk in favour of the appellant. Therefore, they submitted that the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge or setting aside a portion of the order of the Land Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference nor the appellant has made out a good case act such interference. Therefore, the writ appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. After careful consideration of the rival submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge including the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Belthangady Taluk, it is manifest on the face of the same that, there is no error of law much less material irregularity as such committed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the portion of the order, i.e. an extent of 27 cents comprised in Sy.No.253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluk and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 7. It is significant to note after careful perusal of the order passed by the Land Tribunal that, She Land Tribunal has issued a cyclostyled order, mechanically, without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Land Reforms Rules read with Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act and decided the same, without thorough verification of the entire material and without collecting necessary material from the concerned to decide the matter in accordance with law. It is not in dispute, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that, the third respondent has purchased an extent of 27 cents comprised in Sy.No.253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluk, under a registered sale deed from its previous owner on 13th May 1976. It is not in dispute, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that, the third respondent has purchased an extent of 27 cents comprised in Sy.No.253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluk, under a registered sale deed from its previous owner on 13th May 1976. It is further not in dispute that the appellant has filed Form No.7 under Section 48-A of the Land Reforms Act, seeking occupancy rights on 31st December 1976, much after the purchase of the portion of the land by the third respondent under a registered sale deed While filing the said Form No.7, the appellant, intentionally or unintentionally, not impleaded the third respondent and therefore, the Form No.7 itself was defective in nature. Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration, the learned Single Judge has set aside the portion of the order of the Land Tribunal by recording valid and cogent reasons at paragraphs 6 and 7 of his order and set aside an extent of only 27 cents in Sy.No.253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluki and remitted the matter back to Land Tribunal for reconsideration afresh. The said order passed by learned Single Judge is well founded, well reasoned and well considered. Hence, interference in the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge is unwarranted. 8. So far as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant that, there was inordinate delay in redressing the grievance by the third respondent before the learned Single Judge is concerned, the said submission cannot be accepted nor the same has got any substance for the simple reason that intentionally and deliberately without thorough verification, the appellant has filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights, showing the name of the previous owner whereas the third respondent is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore, when it came to the knowledge of the third respondent, the third respondent has made an attempt to redress his grievance before the learned Single Judge, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This aspect of the matter has also been rightly considered and appreciated by the learned Single Judge and condoned the delay by assigning valid reasons. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that there is no error or material irregularity as such committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. This aspect of the matter has also been rightly considered and appreciated by the learned Single Judge and condoned the delay by assigning valid reasons. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that there is no error or material irregularity as such committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. Hence, interference in the same is uncalled for. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, within four weeks from today.