In the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF MARCH 2016 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.17515 OF 2007 (LR) BETWEEN: Sri. P. Mohan Rao, Son of P. Ramakrishna Rao, Aged about 69 years, Since deceased by his Legal Representative: Smt. Lakshmi M Rao, Wife of Late P. Mohan Rao, Aged about 71 years, Residing at No.103, Heritage Royals, La Oceana Housing Colony II Phase, Dona Paula, Goa 403 004. [amended carried out As per court order dated 11.1.2016] …PETITIONER (By Shri K.R.Subramanya Rao, Advocate) 2 AND: 1. Smt. Sheela Shedthi, Since dead by Legal Representative: 1a) Sri. Prabhakar Shetty, Son of Smt. Sheela Shedthi, Major, Residing at “Parameshwari Nilaya”, Kantharakodi, Paduperaru Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Dannada District. 2. Smt. Sharada Senava, Wife of Late Rama Senava, Major, 3. Sri. Ashoka Senava, Wife of Late Rama Senava, Major, 4. Chitra G Shetty, Daughter of Late Rama Senava, Major, 5. Ravi Senava, Son of Late Rama Senava, Major, 6. Praveen Senava, Son of Late Rama Senava, Major, Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are 3 The Legal Representatives of Late Rama Senva, Residing at Kalakebailu House, Paduperaru Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. 7. The Land Tribunal, Moodabidri, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. 8. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, M.S.Building, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (By Smt. B.P.Radha, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.7 and 8; Shri K.S.Bheemaiah, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6; Notice to respondent no.1(a) is held sufficient) ***** This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 28.7.2007 in LRT No.4310 and 4311/79-80 on the file of Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk, Mangalore, vide Annexure-A. This Writ Petition coming on for Final Hearing this day, the court made the following: 4 ORDER The present petition is filed by the owner of certain lands situated at Padupararu village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Though the earlier claim by respondent no.1 and husband of respondent no.2 and the father of respondents nos.3 to 6 having been allowed partly and occupancy rights in respect of certain items of land having been conferred on respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 6, respondent no.1 had questioned the grant of occupancy rights in respect of certain items in favour of respondents nos.2 to 6. This court while holding that the earlier orders passed are not disturbed and the Tribunal shall reconsider the rival claim as between respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 6, it cannot be said that the petitioner is aggrieved. In that, the petitioner is satisfied with the rejection of the claim of respondents in respect of item of land which was dropped form the proceedings and the present remand does not pertain to any of those items which 5 have been refused by the Tribunal on the claim by respondents. Therefore, the petitioner’s grievance now that he has not been permitted to cross-examine the respondents before the Tribunal cannot be a grievance which requires to be addressed. On the other hand, the petitioner may not even be a necessary party before the Tribunal at this juncture. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The petition stands disposed of. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall have no claim over the lands which have been retained by the petitioner. Sd/- JUDGE nv .

Load more