Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 962 (KAR)

Somakku v. State of Karnataka

2015-08-20

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : 1. This petition filed on 9-3-2010 assailing the order dated 29-6-2014, Annexure-B of the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, partly allowing petitioner's application in Form 2-A under Rule 9-A(l) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 read with Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, claiming to be registered as the owner of a dwelling house along with site and land immediately abutting thereto, in an extent of 1 acre 80 cents in Sy. No. 67/2 of Kallige Village, Bantwala Taluk, insofar as it relates to rejection of 1 acre 33 cents on the premise that no notice was served on the petitioner by the Land Tribunal, apparently a false statement, while petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches. 2. The order, Annexure-B, states that personal notice was served on the petitioner while also public notice published in the chavadi and petitioner participated in the proceeding and reads thus:- VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED 3. In the light of what is extracted supra from the order, Annexure-B, there can be no more dispute that petitioner was served with notice of the proceeding before the Land Tribunal, entered appearance and gave her statement which was recorded and therefore, it is too far-fetched to contend at this distance of time i.e. after 16 years that no notice was served on her over the proceeding before the Land Tribunal. 4. Even otherwise, petitioner had the benefit of the order, insofar as it relates to 24 cents in Sy. No. 67/2A and 23 cents in Sy. No. 67/2B2 and therefore, cannot be heard to contend that she had no knowledge of the order, Annexure-B, of the Land Tribunal. 5. As regards the application in Form 7 of the husband of 4th respondent claiming to be a tenant of the agricultural land under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for conferring occupancy rights over agricultural lands in Sy. No. 67/2B to an extent of 38 cents amongst other survey numbers, the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, after adjudication by order dated 21-9-1977, Annexure-D (much prior to petitioner's application in Form 2-A, dated 30-12-1981), conferring occupancy rights over an extent of 38 cents in Sy. No. 67/2B amongst other survey numbers by recording a finding that the 4th respondent was a tenant of the said land as on the appointed date and that the land stood vested in the State under the Act. No. 67/2B amongst other survey numbers by recording a finding that the 4th respondent was a tenant of the said land as on the appointed date and that the land stood vested in the State under the Act. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that conferring occupancy rights on 4th respondent is illegal. The order dated 21-9-1977, Annexure-D, when not challenged within a reasonable time by the petitioner, cannot be permitted to be questioned at this distance of time, more so, after 33 years. Petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches, disentitling the petitioner to any of the reliefs. 6. By order dated 19-8-2015, petition against respondent 3 was held abated. 7. Petition is accordingly rejected with cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/- payable to the 4th respondent.