DEJAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights. But it interfered with the order passed by the Tribunal, allowing the amendment insofar as the name of the village is concerned.

(2.) The material on record discloses that the 3rd respondent Smt.Sheelavathi filed Form No.7 under Section 45A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act seeking occupancy rights in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.112/3, 65/1, 65/2, 65/7, 65/8, 65/9 and 65/10 on the ground that she is cultivating the said land for 10 years prior to the date of filing Form No.7. In Form No.7 in the column meant for the name of the landlord, the name of Sri.Jeevandhar Chowta was shown as the owner. In the application, she stated that she is the daughter of Nemiraja Bhanga. She did not mention her husband's name. The case was registered with No.TRL 1032/81-82. The order sheet produced shows the name of one Kinni @ Manjanna Ballava, deceased represented by his grandson Babu Ballava. Jeevandhar Chowta is none other than the husband of the applicant. A perusal of the application in Form No.7 shows that the wife is claiming occupancy rights against her husband. In the proceedings it is the husband, who appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Tribunal called upon him to give the address of the respondent. Therefore, he gave the name of the respondent as Babu Ballava, Thangady House, Puchchmogaru Village, Post Puchcha Mogaru, Karkala Taluk. The Tribunal directed him to pay the requisite fee for service of notice. The records produced by the learned Government Advocate shows that no process fee was paid for issue of notice to the landlord nor any notice was sent from the office of the Land Tribunal nor any notice was served on the owner. The order sheet discloses that the applicant's husband produced a consent letter said to be of the owner. Acting on the same, occupancy right was granted in favour of the applicant by an order dated 26.09.1981. While granting the occupancy rights, the name of the village was mentioned as Padumarnadu. In other words, the occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land situated in Padumarnadu is granted to the applicant, where as the land claimed was situated in Kellaputtige village. This mistake was not realized during the lifetime of the applicant. It is only after her death, her son Subhash Chandra Chowta filed an application on 04.07.2001 requesting to change the name of the village. On the said application, no notice was issued to the respondents. The Tribunal considered the said application and was convinced that the word 'Padumarnadu' has been typed inadvertently in place of 'Kellaputtige' village and therefore, they proceeded to pass an order on 29.08.2001 correcting the name of the village. It is thereafter, the petitioner preferred the writ petition on 24.10.2001 challenging both the orders.

(3.) The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the first order on the ground that though the notice of the proceedings was not served on the respondent, he had given a consent letter on the basis of which occupancy rights was granted. During his life time, he did not choose to challenge this order and therefore, after his death, it is not open to the appellants to challenge the said order. However, he found merit in the claim of the appellants that the second order, which is passed, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, has set-aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration of the application filed for change of village name. The appellant has preferred this appeal against that portion of the order confirming the grant of occupancy rights by order dated 26.09.1981.