VENKATAMMA, (M. SRINIVAS) Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL AND PATEL RAMAIAH, ( SRI R. MUNIRAJU AND OTHERS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore dated 18.12.1998 as per Annexure-T is in challenge. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.95/1 measuring 3 acres 28 guntas of Kowdenahalli village, K R Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The petitioner challenges the order mainly on the ground of violation of Rule 43 of the Karnataka land Reforms Rules and violation of principles of natural justice by not bringing the legal representatives of the owner as parties. The owner of the land in question whose name found a place in the R.T.C by name Kukkala Muniswamy, who died even prior to passing of the said order. Hence the legal representatives of Sri Kukkala Muniswamy, the petitioner Smt.Venkatamma or their son the petitioner No.1(a) were not brought on record. The procedural safeguard provided under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Rules have been violated. Hence the learned counsel submits that the order in question is liable to be set aside.

(2.) In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon decisions in Smt.Muniakkayyamma Vs., Smt.Hanumakka & others, 2002 ILR(Kar) 3722 as it is held, by virtue of operation of Section 44 land vests with the Government is unsustainable since even today the land stands in the name of Kukkala Muniswamy and thereafter in the name of his legal heirs. The finding of the Tribunal that the land vests with the Government for the purpose of Section 44 of the Act is an error since to rebut the same, the legal representatives of Sri Kukkala Muniswamy were not brought on record. Hence on the face of it, the order is an error and liable to be set aside. The Tribunal further committed an error in relying upon the findings recorded in earlier proceedings for passing the order which is impermissible. The Land Tribunal should have recorded findings afresh. The date was fixed for spot inspection but not held. No prior notice for spot inspection has been given to the petitioner. Even after the death of original owner Kukkala Muniswamy, proceedings continued in his name and his L.Rs. were not brought on record. In similar circumstances, this Court in 1978(2) KLJ 41 held that the proceedings against a dead person is violation and it is impermissible. The notice issued to the legal representatives of Kukkala Muniswamy returned with refusal shara, but actually there was no refusal of the notice by the petitioner/s. It is submitted that the petitioner knew about the proceedings itself is insufficient to hold that the notice is complied. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in Sushil Kumar Sabharwal vs., Gurpreet singh & others

(3.) The order of the Land Tribunal was of the year 1998 and the delay and latches in filing this petition, the sufficient reasons have been stated in the petition. In addition, I.A. for additional grounds has been filed on 4.11.2008 in which it has been stated that wife of Kukkala Muniswamy by name Smt.Venkatamma was seriously ill and suffering from heart ailment and thereafter she died and in this engagement of taking care of his mother, the delay has taken place. In the circumstances, the delay cannot be viewed seriously.