SRINIVASA BHAT Vs. A SARVOTHAMA KINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is from Karnataka High Court. The Division Bench vide its order dated November 21, 2001 set aside the order of the Single Judge dated June 1, 2001 and also the order of the Land Tribunal dated March 29, 1994 and directed the Land Tribunal to pass fresh order concerning the subject land.

(2.) On March 29, 1994, the appellants were conferred occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in respect of Survey No. 108/17 (delineated as R.S. No. 108/17 C) admeasuring 27 cents situate at Shivalli village, Udupi Taluk, Karnataka. The controversy relates to the aforesaid land to the extent of 7 cents. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'writ petitioners') filed a writ petition before Karnataka High Court on January 4, 1999 challenging the order of Land Tribunal dated March 29, 1994. The writ petitioners set up the case that the extent of property admeasuring 7 cents being the portion of Survey No. 108/17 originally belonged to one Sri Krishna Kini who transferred the said land to Sri Rangannaiah (father of 5th writ petitioner) in 1949 and the purchaser came into possession. Sri Rangannaiah mainly used the said land for non-residential purposes as the property is situate in the heart of Udupi city in a prime business locality and no agricultural operations were ever carried out in the said land by Sri Rangannaiah. After the death of Sri Rangannaiah, the said land came to the share of 5th writ petitioner who transferred it to writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and they came in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. It was averred that in the beginning of 1998, Smt. Krishnaveniamma (Appellant No. 2 herein) tried to interfere with their possession and hence a suit (O.S. No. 74/1998) was filed by them in the Court of IInd Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Udupi wherein it transpired that the present appellants were asserting their rights in the said land on the basis of occupancy rights conferred upon them by the Land Tribunal. The writ petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 then made enquiries from the Land Tribunal, got the copy of the order dated March 29, 1994 and approached the High Court.

(3.) The present appellants who were respondents in the writ petition filed their reply and raised diverse objections viz; that the writ petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as they were not parties to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal; that the challenge to the order dated March 29, 1994 passed by the Land Tribunal suffered from delay and laches; that the writ petitioners concealed material facts with regard to rejection of their prayer for temporary injunction in the suit filed by them; and that in the suit, for consideration of the application for temporary injunction, the court appointed Assistant Director of Land Records as Commissioner, who after factual assessment of the subject land submitted a sketch stating therein that the claim of the writ petitioners was not correct and they were not in possession and that they have no right or interest in the subject land.