GANAPATHI PARAMESHWARA BHAT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, dated 22-11-2002 in No. LRM. SR. 48c/10/765 appointing Tahsildar, Honavar, as the receiver of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 4/4, 3/1 and 299/1 measuring 0. 16 guntas 4 annas, 11 guntas and 1 acre 1 gunta respectively, situated at Karki village, Honavar Taluk, U. K. District, have filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioners claim to be absolute owners of the lands in question and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The lands in question fell to their share in the partition entered into between the family members and in pursuance of the partition, the petitioners submitted a wardy to the revenue authorities on 21-3-1983 along with other family members. Thereafter, mutation has been certified in respect of these lands in question and the petitioners' name have been entered in the Record of Rights and the same is continued till date. To substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced annexures-D, E, F and G and submitted that for the agricultural year 2001-02, in the Kabsedar's column and cultivator's column i. e. , column nos. 9 and 12 (2), the name of the father of the petitioners is shown. He further submitted that when the matter was pending consideration, respondent 3 herein filed an application for appointment of a receiver. The petitioners filed objections to the said application. Without considering the said objections and without taking into consideration the material on record, the Land Tribunal passed the impugned order appointing a receiver on the ground that when the matter was pending adjudication, the petitioners ought not to have taken police protection and removed the standing crop and that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the petitioners nor their Counsel made out any case for non-appointing the receiver. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, in pursuance of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in Execution Petition No, 30 of 1957, possession has been handed over to the family members of the petitioners on 24-1-1970. Thereafter, there was partition between the family members and they submitted a joint wardy to the Revenue Authority for certifying mutation, on 21-3-1983. The same has been certified and the lands in question along with other lands, came to the share of late Ganapathi bhat vide Annexure-B. Thereafter, his name has been entered in the record of Rights till date. These material documents were very much available before the Competent Authority. But, the Land Tribunal, neither made any sincere efforts to find out as to whose name is found in the relevant records nor verified the latest Record of Rights maintained by the Tahsildar who is the custodian of the same being the Secretary of the Land Tribunal. He further submitted that the Land Tribunal has also not considered the objections filed by the petitioners and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.