M P KRISHNE GOWDA Vs. A R LOBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant challenged the grant of 10 acres of land to the first respondent under the Land Grant Rules. The grant was made in November 1983.

(2.) According to the appellant he sought the grant of land because he belonged tothe category of ex-military personnel. Earlier he had also applied for the grant of land in the same survey number in the year 1979. Subsequently the first respondent also applied for the grant of land claiming to be an ex-military pesonnel. It is stated that the land is situated in Survey No. 41 which in all measured more than 340 acres out of which 20 acres of land was reserved for grant to ex-military personnel. The first respondent was allotted 10 acres out of this 20 acres on 26-10-1983 by the Deputy Commissioner. The first respondent was not satisfied with this grant and persuaded the authorities to allot him further land and accordingly under the impugned order he was granted with another 10 acres thus exhausting the entire land reserved for ex-military personnel. The appellant was not aware of this grant and immediately on coming to know of this he questioned the grant in the year 1986 by approaching the Kama la ka Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was rejected on the ground that there was nothing to show that the appellant's claim was based on the fact thai he belonged to the ex-military personnel category. The Appellate Tribunal further observed that the appellant had challenged the grant of another portion in the same survey number to a few others which is pending consideration by this Court in W.P. No. 4710/1985. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's applications were filed, one on 19-7-1979 and another on 18-12-1980 and therefore the appellant could not have invoked ihe reservation made in favour of ex-military personnel in the year 1982. Since the grant made in favour of the first respondent was after due consideration of his case based on recommendation of the various authorities, the Appellate Tribunal did not find it just and proper to set aside the said grant. It was argued before the Appellate Tribunal that the appellant was granted another laud in Survey No. 134 measuring 7 acres but the Appellate Tribunal observes that the said fact had no relevancy to the present dispute raised by the appellant. This order was challenged by the appellant without any success before the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Mr. Gopal, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the case of the appellant was not at all considered before the land was granted in favour of the first respondent; since an application was filed by the appellant in this category was already pending before the Depuly Commissioner, it was incumbent on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to consider the claim made by the appellant along with the case of the first respondent.