K. THARANATHA GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the appellant/petitioner assailing the correctness of the impugned order of dismissal dated 20.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 15614/2009, wherein the appellant had questioned the correctness of the order dated 18.10.2000 vide Annexure-C and the order dated 10.06.2002 vide Annexure-D, passed by the 3rd and 2nd respondents, respectively. In brief, the facts of the case in hand are that:

(2.) The submission of Sri. S. N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset is that, both the authorities and the learned Single Judge have committed an error resulting in miscarriage of justice in not considering the material on record, while rejected the application holding that the appellant's family is holding 4.75 acres of punja land, therefore, they are not entitled for regularization of the unauthorized occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 149/1A and 1B situated at Madappadi village, Sullya taluk. The reasoning given cannot be sustained. To substantiate the same he vehemently submitted that the appellant is in possession of the land in question since decades, constructed a residential house and residing along with the cattle, and at this stage disturbing him would be injustice and he will become a houseless person. This aspect is neither looked into nor appreciated by the authorities nor by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the orders impugned passed by the jurisdictional authorities and the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside by confirming the grant made by the regularization Committee in favour of the appellant.

(3.) Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 inter alia contended and substantiated that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the orders passed by the jurisdictional authorized authorities is just and proper. It is passed after conducting enquiry and going through the entire material available on record. The appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands nor has stated the true facts and it is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner in the order vide Annexure-D, has specifically observed that, the appellant filed an application for regularization of unauthorized occupation of land on 17.06.1991 and the Partition Deed was registered on 20.01.1997. As per Partition Deed the father of the appellant has got 4.75 acres of land as his share. At the time of filing an application in Form No. 50 for regularization of unauthorized occupation, the family was having the exceeding limit of land. Therefore, both the authorities after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding of fact and held that the appellant has not approached the authority with clean hands nor stated true facts. Therefore, the authorities are justified in rejecting the claim granted in his favour by the Regularization Committee and the same has been rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for, in view of well settled law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of judgments. Therefore, he submits, the prayer sought by the appellant cannot be sustained and liable to be dismissed with costs.