MUNIYAMMA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in W.P.No.49517/2016 happens to be the brother of Petitioner in W.P.No.3587/2019/ Both they seek to lay a challenge to the order dtd. 30/12/2015 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ("KAT" for short here afterwards) at Annexure-A whereby their appeals having been negatived, the 1st Respondent - Spl. Deputy Commissioner's order dtd. 30/8/2002 has been affirmed. As a consequence, the land in Sy. No.20 admeasuring 5 Acres and a portion of the land in Sy. No.28 admeasuring 02 Acres & 02 Guntas has not been considered for according occupancy in terms of their father's application in Form No.7 dtd. 28/1/1980 at Annexure-B.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners argues that although the occupancy has been registered in respect of 09 Guntas in Sy. NO.10 and 04 Guntas in Sy. No.1 of the subject village, the occupancy ought to have been granted in respect of two other lands as well, as has been claimed in the application. In support of his contention, he banks upon certain observations made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier case in W.P.No.28380/2004 disposed off by a Coordinate Bench on 13/4/2012 a copy of the order whereof avails at Annexure-K. He also argues that the 1962 order having been set at naught in W.P.No.1980 writ petition, the KAT ought to have allowed the appeal.

(3.) Learned HCGP appears for the official Respondents and the private advocates appear for the private Respondents herein. They oppose the Writ Petitions making submission in justification of the impugned order of the KAT which has affirmed the Spl. Deputy Commissioner's order in appeal.