1 in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.7574/2014(LR-SEC-77) BETWEEN BATYA NAIKA DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 1. SANJEEV NAIKA,S/O BATYA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O ALETTY VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK-574239,D.K 2.SMT JAYANTHI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O BATYA NAIK, W/O JANARDHANA NAIKA, AJJAVARA POST, SULLIA TALUK-574239 D.K 3.LINGAPPA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O BATYA NAIKA, R/AT ALETTY VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK -574239 D.K 4.JANARDHANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O BATYA NAIKA, R/AT ALETTY VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK -574239 D.K 2 5.RAJEEVA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O BATYA NAIKA, R/AT ALETTY VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK -574239 D.K 6.MADHAVA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O BATYA NAIKA, R/AT ALETTY VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK -574239 D.K ... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY D, ADVOCATE) AND 1.SINGLE MEMBER LAND TRIBUNAL, SULLIA, SULLIA TALUK,DAKSHINA KANNADA-574239 BY AUTHORISED OFFICER 2.SRINIVASA BAIPADITHAYA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O A.S BAIPADITHAYA, R/AT NISARGA HEALTH CENTRE, DARBE,PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574201, SULLIA TALUK,D.K. 3.STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IMPUGNED ORDER DT.18.10.12, IN APPEAL NO.41/03 PASSED BY THE KARNATKA 3 APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANN- C & ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; ORDER The judgment of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.41/2003,dated 18 th October 2012 is assailed in this writ petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner who is the son of the deceased had filed an application in Form No.7-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in view of the amendment made to the Act by insertion of Section 77-A in respect of 22 cents in Sy.No.109/2 of Alatti Village, Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The competent authority namely, the first respondent considered the application and granted occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land. The third respondent herein challenged that order before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal after perusal of the records and taking into consideration the judgments of this Court has allowed the 4 appeal and set aside the order of the first respondent. Consequently, the grant of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land was declined. Being aggrieved by that judgment, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, who appears on advance notice for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the material on record. 3. From the impugned judgment, it is noted that the deceased petitioner had earlier filed Form No.7 in respect of four items of land namely, survey Nos.108/7C, 106/1B, 106/2B and 108/7B. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid survey numbers. However, while filing Form No.7, there was no application made in respect of survey No.109/2. Consequently, it was not considered or granted. It is only after the amendment made to the Act, Form No.7-A has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 5 the aforesaid land. Such an application would amount to a second application for grant of occupancy rights, which is not permissible in law. Form No.7-A could only be filed by the tenant who has not earlier filed Form No.7. In the instant case, the deceased petitioner had filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of four items of land. It is not known as to why no application has been made in Form No.7 in respect of survey No.109/2. The instant case would only be hit by the principles stated in Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as the prayer for grant of occupancy rights in respect of survey No.109/2 not having been made in Form No. 7 could not be made after amendment of the Act under Form No.7A. It virtually amounts to second Form No.7, which is impermissible in law. 4. In this context, reliance could be placed on paragraph -18 of the opinion of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Lokayya Poojary and Another –Vs- State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2012(4) KCCR 3411 (FB). 6 5. In this view of the matter, the Karnataka Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal of the second respondent and setting aside the order of the competent authority namely, the first respondent. The impugned order would not call for any interference. 6. The writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Msu .

Load more