Revenue Bench 2 Orders

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

APPEAL NO. 881/2005. 4/11/08 , Smt. Babi Heggadthi, V Government

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE

THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008.

APPEAL NO. 881/2005.
PRESENT:

1. SRI.M.N.VIJAYAKUMAR; IAS; REVENUE MEMBER.
2. SRI. H.R.DESHPANDE; DISTTRICT JUDGE MEMBER.

BETWEEN :

Smt. Babi Heggadthi,
W/o Ramnna Hegde,
Age: 66 years, Occ : Agriculturist,
R/at Palmaryu House, Yerlapady Village,
Karkala Taluk, Udupi District. APPELLANT

[By Sri . V.R. Prasanna - Advocate]

AND:

1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Udupi District, Udupi.

2. The Committee for Regularization
of Un-authorised Occupation of the
Govt. Lands, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District,
By its Secretary/Tahsildar. RESPONDENTS

[R-1, 2 & 3 - By Asst. State Representative]

The following Judgment of the Bench is delivered by
SRI. M.N.VIJAYA KUMAR, IAS; REVENUE MEMBER.

This appeal has been filed under section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act against an order of the R-1 - the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District in case No. C.Dis.NCR.SR.15/2003-04 dated 27.6.2005. As per the impugned order, Respondent-1 had rejected the application for the regularization of unauthorized encroachment filed by the present Appellant against an order passed by the R-2 in Case No. EDR(1)371:93:94 dated 12.03.99. The unauthorized encroachments pertain to land measuring 3 acres of S.No. 364 and also Warga lands measuring 0.98 acre in S.No. 425/3 and 0.85 acre at Yerlapady Village, Karkala Taluk. This land is referred to as the ‘disputed land’ hereinafter.

.2. The Appellant mainly contended that he was not issued any notice and that not regularizing land in his favor is improper.

3. After going through the material on hand and arguments heard in the matter, the point .for our consideration is:

Whether the impugned order is legally sustainable?

4. Our findings for the above point is in the ‘Positive’ for the following
`

5. Records reveal that Appellant had appeared before the lower court and that the Respondents had considered the claims made by the Appellant . As observed by the Respondents the Katha produced clearly indicate that the Appellant was already having other lands making him ineligible for regularization. After filing the appeal before this authority, he had enough time to produce the Katha to show that that he had insufficient land and thus was eligible for regularization of land in his favor. But Appellant did not produce the Katha to prove the fact that he is eligible for regularization of land.

6. On the other hand all the records available before us clearly establish that the Appellant had land in excess prescribed for regularization of unauthorized holding.

7. In view of these we make the following

The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District in case No. C.Dis. NCR. SR. 5/03-04 dated 27.6.05 is upheld.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited and then pronounced in the open court this the 4th day of November, 2008.

[H.R.DESHPANDE] [M.N.VIJAYA KUMAR]
DISTRICT JUDGE MEMBER. REVENUE MEMBER.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

APPEAL NO. 138/2003. 7/11/08

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE

THIS THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008.

APPEAL NO. 138/2003.
PRESENT:

1. SRI.M.N.VIJAYAKUMAR; IAS; REVENUE MEMBER.
2. SRI. H.R.DESHPANDE; DISTRICT JUDGE MEMBER.

BETWEEN :

Thimmayya Moily
Aged 62 years
S/o. Late Maila Moily
Hunsekatte
Pundikku House,
Belthangady Tq.
Dakshina Kannada Dist. APPELLANT

[By Sri . N.Sukumar Jain - Advocate]

AND:

1. The Asst. Commissioner,
Sub-Division,
Puttur Tq & P.O.
Dakshina Kannada District.

2. Domba Rai
Aged 66 years,
S/o. Basappa Rai
Pundikku House,
Belthangady Tq.,
Dakshina Kannada District.

3. Mr. Sridara Moily
Aged 30 years,
S/o Late Veerappa Moily,
Near Veerappa Moily,
Belthangady Tq. and post,
Dakshina Kannada District. RESPONDENTS

[R-1 - By Asst. State Representative]
[R – 2 – By Sri. K.M.Nataraj – Advocate]
[R – 3 – notice served – absent]

The following Judgment of the Bench is delivered by
SRI. M.N.VIJAYA KUMAR , IAS; REVENUE MEMBER.

This appeal has been filed under section 118(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act against an order of the R-1 - the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Taluk in case No. C.DIS.LRF:65/1998-99 dated 22.02.2001. As per the impugned order the R-1 has rejected the Form 7 application of the Appellant for the grant of land measuring 0.76 acre in S.No. 120/9 and 0.15 acre in S.No. 120/10 of Belthangady Taluk, D.K District u/s. 77-A of the Act.

.2. The contention of the Appellant is that the deceased father was granted the land under dispute and others about 40 years back. After the death of father of the Appellant, the land was with the younger brother of the deceased father. After his death, the Appellant is in possession of the disputed property and other lands. The Appellant contends that the R-3 made efforts to get the disputed property mutated in his name and in order passed by the Asst. Commissioner, his R-3 request was rejected. R-2 filed Form 7-A in respect of the disputed land in which R-3 was shown as the owner. The Appellant contends that the R-1 passed the order on 22.2.01 rejecting the claim of the R-2 and R-1 further ordered that the lands vested with the Government. The contention of the Appellant is that he was not notified with the R-2 case was heard. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the 1st Respondent, the Appellant filed a W.Ps.No. 16328-16329/2002 dated 1.10.02. The High Court judgment in W.Ps.No. 16328-29 dated 1.10.02 while rejecting the petition of the Appellant observed that against the order of the Asst. Commissioner, there is provision to avail alternate remedy.

3. After going through the material on hand and arguments heard in the matter, the point .for our consideration is:

1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.2.01 passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Puttur District is legally sustainable?

2. Whether the Asst. Commissioner is competent to hold that the land has vested with the government?

3. What Order?

4. Our findings for the above points are:

Point No.1:- In the Negative.
Point No. 2:- In the Negative.
Point No.3:- As per the final order for the following:

5. Point No,1:- On perusal of the lower court records reveal that Appellant was not a party before the R-1. On 29.9.05, we have recorded the contention of counsel for R-2 requesting to club this case with another appeal challenging the rejection of Form 7-A. Examination of records show that in Appeal No. 917/02 except for R-2 other Respondents were the same. Further R-2 in both the cases are sons one Basappa Rai, it is to be noted that in that case order was passed on 7.2.05 itself. As the contention raised by the Appellant in both the cases, almost word by word are same , we cannot pass an order differing from that order in this case.

6. Point No.2:- .In addition to this, the Appellant has brought to our notice during the hearing , a case reported at Shivamurthayya Vs. the State of Karnataka in ILR 1997 KAR 3233 which indicate that only the tribunal has jurisdiction to decide whether the land is tenanted or not and as such vested the State or not. In the instant case, we find that the Asst.Commissioner has passed the impugned order vesting the land with the State Government. Therefore the said order is liable to be set aside. Similar order is also passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 917/02 on 7.2.2005. This has to be taken into consideration in the present case.

7. Point No.3:- In view of these, we make the following

The appeal is allowed. The order of R-1 for forfeiting the land to Government is set aside and the matter is remitted back to R-1 to take measures to dispose in accordance with the law giving an opportunity to the Appellant.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited and then pronounced in the open court this the 7th day of November, 2008.

[H.R.DESHPANDE] [M.N.VIJAYA KUMAR]
DISTRICT JUDGE MEMBER. REVENUE MEMBER.

APPEAL NO. 881/2005.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License