LAWS(KAR)-2011-3-40

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. WML SALDHANA

Decided On March 08, 2011
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
WML. SALDHANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are the petitioners in the writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 9-6-2006 made in W.R No.4523/2002 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners confirming the order dated 16-1- 2001 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 158/1999 have preferred this writ appeal.

(2.) THE State Government filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 16-1-2001 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.158/1999 wherein the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order dated 16-2-1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur and directed to restore the katha to an extent of 162.02 acres of land in favour of the respondents, inter alia contending that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is contrary to law.

(3.) IT is also the case of the appellants that the learned single Judge without considering the contentions raised by the appellants, only relying upon the finding given by the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the respondents have been in possession and cultivating the said land. Further, the Government has not granted the said land to any person. The learned single Judge has accepted the finding with regard to the entry made during the year 1940-41 to show that the land has been alienated for non-payment of land revenue without considering the earlier entry made in the year 1934-35 in No.53/34-35 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the land has been surrendered by way of Rajiname to the State Government. Further, if the respondents have been in possession of the land, the question of granting 35 acres of the land to the third party does not arise. The learned single Judge without looking into the original records, accepted the finding given by the Appellate Authority and dismissed the writ petition confirming the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, the appellants have preferred this appeal.