LAWS(KAR)-2011-11-218

SHIVAMMA W/O G.N. NANJUNDAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 1 AND OTHERS

Decided On November 09, 2011
Shivamma W/O G.N. Nanjundaiah Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary Revenue Department M.S. Buildings Bangalore - 1 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE G.N.Nanjundaiah claiming to be a tenant in respect of the lands in question filed Form No. 7A for grant of the lands. The relationship inter se between the petitioners as well as the respondents is not disputed inasmuch as G.N.Nanjundaiah original applicant is the brother of Ramalingappa, who is the owner of the land. The total extent would be 9 acres 23 guntas. According to the petitioners all the Revenue records would disclose the name of G.N.Nanjundaiah. The competent authority granted the application of Nanjundaiah.

(2.) ON appeal by the respondents. the same is set -aside. The order of the Tribunal was the subject matter of a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 10369/2003 and connected matter. This Court pursuant to the order dated 2nd July 2004 allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. On remission, the Tribunal has once again allowed the appeal and has set -aside the order passed by the competent authority and dismissed the application of the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition. Incidentally, it is to be noticed that during this interregnum, the original applicant G.N.Nanjundaiah has died and the present petition is by the widow and the children of deceased Nanjundaiah.

(3.) MR .R.V.Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supports the order of the Tribunal. He submits that at no point of time, the lands were tenanted. He further submits that the petitioners are not in possession of the land. Another contention raised by him is that a suit was filed by the original applicant in O.S.No. 251/1996 for declaration of title on the ground that they have perfected title by adverse possession. Hence, in the circumstances, the question of entertaining the application in Form No. 7A would not arise.