H. BYLAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the order dated 26.07 2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk insofar as it pertains to rejection of the application filed by them in Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 72 measuring 33 acres 20 guntas including 1 acre 12 guntas of kharab situated at Jarakbande Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk. The application filed by the petitioner is rejected by the Tribunal based on an application filed under Order 23 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC supported by affidavit said to have been sworn to by the petitioner and notarised through his advocate wherein the petitioner has allegedly requested to permit him to withdraw the petition as he did not want to prosecute the matter any further. In view of the said application without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order rejecting the application.

(2.) THE main contention urged in these writ petitions is that the petitioners have not filed any such application seeking to withdraw the claim and that the 2nd respondent has incorrectly recorded the said fact regarding the filing of the application and has proceeded to allow the application thereby dismissing the claim made in Form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights.

(3.) IN the light of the allegation made by the petitioner that he had not filed any application seeking to withdraw the claim made in Form No. 7 and that the Tribunal has incorrectly proceeded to pass order on the alleged application said to have been filed by the petitioner, this Court vide order dated 17.08.2012 directed the learned Government Pleader to secure the records maintained by the Tribunal to examine the veracity and correctness of the assertions made by the petitioner. When the matter was again listed on 27.08.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to secure the presence of the petitioner while the Government Pleader was directed to make available the records. The matter was adjourned to 04.09.2012, on which date, the petitioner was present. He submitted to the Court that he has not filed any application before the Tribunal seeking withdrawal of the claim made by him in Form No. 7. He also contended that no affidavit was filed by him in support of the said application.