H.RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Land Tribunal order dtd. 27/5/1987 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-E whereby occupancy rights have been registered concerning the land admeasuring 07 Acres and 20 Guntas in Sy. Nos. 42 and 43 of Vodeyarahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluka, in favour of 4th Respondent- Sri Jayaramaiah.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that: at no point of time, the 4th Respondent had cultivated the land either as tenant or otherwise; occupancy has been granted on the strength of fabricated documents; entries in the Revenue Records do not support the tenancy; Petitioner had no notice of occupancy proceedings; 1978 Sale Deed under which, the 4th Respondent bought the adjoining land does not mention anything about he being the tenant of the Petition land; Petitioner and his father being "illiterate and rustic villagers", had no knowledge of the impugned order and on coming to know of the same, by virtue of Caveat entered by the 4th Respondent in the Civil Court, he has approached this Court. Thus, there is no delay and latches that come in the way of invalidation of the impugned order.

(3.) Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents and the learned advocate appearing for the 4th Respondent " Tenant oppose the Writ Petition with equal vehemence making submission in support of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. The 4th Respondent has filed the Statement of Objections producing a wealth of material by way of Annexures. They deny the explanation offered by the Petitioner for the delay and latches of about 35 years. The advocate for 4th Respondent contends: the subject property has changed hands by registered Sale Deeds and the buyers thereof have not been made parties; the entire land except 01 Acre and 38 Guntas has already been developed as a layout and sold to others; Petitioner's father was before this Court as a Respondent in 4th Respondent's W.P.No.23482/1981, disposed off on 23/2/1983 whereby the grant of occupancy having been set aside, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. Despite service of notice, the Petitioner's father chose not to participate in the proceedings; the Land Tribunal after weighing the evidentiary material on record has granted occupancy and therefore, the matter does not merit deeper examination in a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227. So contending, both they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.