LAKSHMAPPA S/O. THIPPANNA BETHUR ALIAS MATTI. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the Petitioner -tenant being aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2003 in Case No. LRM:TC:391:74 -75 passed by the Land Tribunal, Harihara rejecting his claim for grant of occupancy rights.

(2.) BRIEF history of the case is that earlier the Land Tribunal by the order dated 8.5.1979 based on the alleged statement of the Petitioner -tenant rejected the claim of the Petitioner for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 44 measuring 4 -30 acres and Sy. No. 42/A measuring 5 acres of Bilasanur village, Harihar Taluk. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred writ petition No. 18433/1980 before this Court and this Court by the order dated 2.7.1986 transferred the petition to Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority was numbered in L.R.A. No. 32/86 and by the order dated 29.12.1987 the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in L.R.R.P No. 1789/88. This Court by the order dated 11.4.2002 allowed the revision petition and remanded the case to the Land Tribunal to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with law, with the strict compliance of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules by providing sufficient opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the matter within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order. The parties were directed to maintain status quo as on that date.

(3.) AFTER remand, the owners have not appeared before the Land Tribunal but only the purchaser contested the proceedings. At page 465 of the records of the Land Tribunal, it is mentioned that notices could not be served on 3rd Respondent and 6th Respondent as they were not in the village and 8th Respondent, 9th Respondent, 10th Respondent and the 11th Respondent could not be served as they were no more. So far as third Respondent is concerned, notice issued to him is returned on account of insufficiency of address. Therefore, the Land Tribunal ought to have taken further steps to serve the owners but instead on 23.11.2002; the case was adjourned to 7.12.2002 for statement. The statement of the Petitioner was recorded on 28.12.2002 and it was concluded on 25.1.2003. On 28.2.2003 the statement of the purchaser Sri Nijalingaiah s/o Sangappaiah was recorded and by the order dated 3.5.2003 the impugned order came to be passed. Hence the present writ petition.