DEVAKI Vs. U. SOMA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 26309/2005 dated 17.11.2008 wherein the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by R-1 and remanded the matter to the competent authority to consider the application filed by R-1 under Sec. 77A (Form No. 7-A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. This case has a chequered career. The parties are knocking the doors of this court by filing writ petitions and writ appeals in three rounds.

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder: Father of R-1 late Shivappa Gowda was a tenant under the husband of the appellant herein in respect of 8 lands in Sy. Nos. 151 & 153 of Koyyuru village of Belthangady Taluk. After the death of father of R-1, R-1's mother Seethu Hengsu filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Belthangady in Case No. LRY 177/74-75 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 8 items of lands in Sy. No. 155 and 151. While filing an application in Form No. 7 mother of R-1 did not claim Sy. No. 153/3 measuring 9-18 acres and Sy. No. 150/5A measuring 94 cents. Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of entire extent of land including the lands which were not claimed by her as per order dated 15.12.1978 against which landlord filed a writ petition before this court in WP No. 4488/1979 and the writ petition was allowed on 19.10.1983 remanding the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration granting liberty to the mother of R-1 to make an application for amendment of Form No. 7 to include two survey numbers which were not claimed by her in Form No. 7 (which are now the subject matter in the present appeal).

(3.) The tribunal while disposing of the matter afresh came to the conclusion that inspite of a direction issued by this court in WP No. 4488/1979, R-1's mother did not file an application to amend Form No. 7. Accordingly, application filed by the mother of R-1 was rejected in regard to these two survey numbers. Tribunal while rejecting the claim of R-1's mother in regard to these two lands also held that Sy. No. 153/3 is a punja land and was not cultivated by the mother of R-1.