BASTHI DINDAS SHENOY S/O BASTHI VASUDEVA SHENOY AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. SHARIPHAMMA WIDOW OF KUNHIPPA BEARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants and Government Advocate for respondent Nos.7 and 8 on admission. The appellants are challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P. No. 31231/2003 dated 26.08.2011. The appellants were writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge. The appellants claiming to be the legal representatives of one Susheela Bai, who was the wife of late Purushothama Shenoy, challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Puttur in LRYT No. 1914/1974 -75 dated 08.04.2003 filed the wilt petition, wherein the application filed by one Kunhippa Beary in Form No. 7 has been allowed. According to the appellants, the dispute is irk regard to two survey numbers viz, Sy. No. 271/3P measuring 3 acres 55 cents and Sy. No. 235/1 measuring 1 acre 75 cents of Kodimbala Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District.

(2.) ONE Kunhippa Beary filed Form No. 7 claiming to be the tenant of one Smt. Susheela @ Lakshmi Bai by showing Srinivasa Shenoy as landlord in 1975, which application came to be allowed by the Land Tribunal on 13.06.1979. Susheela @ Lakshmi Bai filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 23698/1982 challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 13.06.1979. On account of amendment brought into the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the writ petition was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Puttur LRAM No. 141/1986. Since Section 17 of the Act was again repealed, the appeals which were pending before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority came to be transferred to the High Court in C. P. No. 176/ 1990 which was later treated as W.P. No. 13745/1991. This Court on 11.06.1996 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal. During the pendency of the application before the Land Tribunal, Susheela @ Lakshmi Bai died on 18.11.1997. Later, on 08.04.2003 the application filed by the tenant Kunhippa Beary carne to be allowed. Challenging the same, the writ petition was filed on the ground that after the death of Lakshmi Bai, legal representatives were not brought on record and they were not heard in the matter and that the land in question are punja lands and were not brought for cultivation. Therefore, granting of punja lands in favour of Kunhippa Beary was bad in law.

(3.) SO far as the other point is concerned, considering the developments which have taken place, the learned Single Judge also held that it was not a punja land since the land was brought into cultivation. Accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed.