SHESHAGIRI Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R1 and 2. Notice to R3 to 17 is dispensed with.

(2.) THE petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 23. 6. 1976 in No. TNC : SR ; 460 (Annexure-D) passed by the 1st respondent has presented this writ petition.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that, he being the brother of R 17 - Sri Vaman S/o Naryana Kulkarni is the joint owner of C. S. No. 89 measuring 41 acres 05 guntas situated at Chikkaasangi village in Basavana Bagewadi Taluk, Bijapur District. They are personally cultivating the land in question. Since their relationship is strained they partitioned the land in two equal and separate strips and they are cultivating their individual strips separately and personally. In view of the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1973, the predecessors of respondents 3 to 16 filed Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question on 28. 10. 1974; the petitioner was not impleaded as a party to the said application or in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and only the brother of the petitioner, respondent No. 17 was a party. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that, notice was issued to his brother Vaman S/o Narayan Kulkarni stating that the date of hearing was fixed on 23. 6. 1976. Though the date of hearing was fixed on 23. 6. 1976, the case was taken on 22. 6. 1976 and statement of both the parties were recorded, but not by the Chairman. The land Tribunal after considering the material on record granted occupancy rights in favour of R3 to R 16. The said order was not communicated to the petitioner, as such, he was not aware of the same till the 1st week of October 2002, when respondents tried to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Thereafter, he applied for certified copies and approached this court by way of filing this writ petition. Therefore, there is a delay in filing the writ petition and the said delay was not intentional. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent Land Tribunal on 23. 6. 1976, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.