SEETHA @ SHAKUNTALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was third respondent in the writ petition, has assailed the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 33750/2010 dated 22nd August 2012. In the writ petition filed by third respondent herein, he had sought for quashing the order dated 17th November, 1979 passed by the second respondent-Land Tribunal, Belthangady Taluk, in Case No. LRY. 49/76-77 vide Annexure J to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal only in respect of an extent of 27 cents in Sy. No. 253/2 and left the remaining portion of the order undisturbed. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case in hand are that, the third respondent herein has contended that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land measuring an extent of 27 cents comprised in Sy. No. 253/2 of Mundaje Village in Belthangady Taluk on the ground that he had purchased the said land under registered sale deed, duly executed by the previous owner on 13th May 1976. Be that as it may, the appellant filed Form No. 7, seeking registration of occupancy rights in respect of 49 cents comprised in Survey No. 253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluk. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Land Tribunal, where the third respondent herein has mentioned the name of the vendor of the third respondent as the owner in respect of the land in question and the Land Tribunal, without conducting proper enquiry in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Land Reforms Act read with the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act, has registered occupancy rights in favour of the appellant herein in respect of the entire extent of 49 cents. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal, conferring occupancy rights on the appellant herein, the third respondent filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 33750/2010 and the said writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the said writ petition, holding that, as the third respondent is the purchaser of an extent of 27 cents of land and as he is recorded as owner and anubavdar of 27 cents in the revenue records produced by him at Annexure C and D to the writ petition, set aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, conferring occupancy rights in favour of appellant, only in so far as it pertains to an extent of 27 cents comprised in Sy. No. 253/2 and left the rest of the order granting occupancy rights in respect of the remaining extent undisturbed and remanded the matter back to Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The said order has been passed by the learned Single Judge, by assigning valid reasons and recording a finding of fact at paragraph 6 of his order to the effect that the third respondent purchased the land in question under a registered sale deed from the previous owner on 13th May 1976 and the appellant has filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights on 31st December 1976, without thorough verification and intentionally and deliberately not impleaded the third respondent nor notified in the relevant column No. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant felt necessitated to present this appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.

(3.) The principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for appellant, Shri. N. Sukumar Jain, at the outset is that, the learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal to an extent of 27 cents in respect of Sy. No. 253/2 of Mundaje village of Belthangady Taluk. It is the specific case of the appellant, that she has been cultivating the said land since 1973 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question and the said land is vested in Government as on 1st March 1974. Therefore, the purchase made by the third respondent is null and void and cannot be sustained when the land has been declared as a tenanted land. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered nor appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of an extent of 27 cents. Further, he is quick to point out and submit that, there is inordinate delay in questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Land Tribunal before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in condoning the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and the writ petition therefore, ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches at the threshold itself. Therefore he submitted that, on these grounds, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be vitiated and the writ petition filed by the third respondent ought to have been dismissed as devoid of merits.