NIMBAPPA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 13. 11. 2002 in No. KLR SR 32/28 (Annexure-D) passed by the 1st respondent. Further, they sought a direction directing the 1st respondent to club Form No. 7a filed by the petitioners under Section 77-A of the Act (Ann. A) along with the instant proceedings in No. KLR. SR. 32/28 and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that, on the basis of the application filed by the R2 (a) to (h) before the land Tribunal for deleting their names from the proceedings initiated on the basis of form No. 7 filed by the respective tenants in respect of land in sy. No. 66 measuring 24 acres 9 guntas situated at Thirtha village of kundagol Taluk, Dharwad District on the ground that the petitioners are not a necessary party to the said proceedings and they have not filed Form No. 7. The land Tribunal accepted the statement made by the contesting respondents and held that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the said proceeding by its order dated 13. 11. 2003. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the parties in the proceedings. He has pointed out that from impugned order passed by the land Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioners? father?s name was found at Sl. No. 2. The land tribunal passed the order holding that he is not a necessary party to the said proceeding. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act. To substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance on sub-clause 2 of Section 48a. Under the said provisions the petitioners are entitled to be heard in the matter before considering the request of the contesting respondent for grant of occupancy rights. Further he placed reliance on the name found in col. No. 12 (2) of the ROR for the agricultural years 1967-68 to 1996-97. In the ROR the petitioners? father?s name is shown and mode of cultivation is shown as ?3? which indicates as a tenant. When these materials are in favour of the petitioners, the Tribunal is not justified in passing the impugned order deleting the name of the petitioners from the pending proceedings on its file. Further he submitted that, in view of non filing of Form no. 7 in pursuance to amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the petitioners have filed Form No. 7a before the competent authority for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands cultivated by the petitioners? father and the said application was pending consideration. Therefore, he sought appropriate directions may be issued to the Tribunal to club the applications filed by the petitioners? father in Form No. 7a and the application filed by the contesting respondent No. 2 and to proceed in accordance with law.