PATEL B SUNDARA SHETTY Vs. JARAPPA D BANGERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Patel B. Sundara Shetty, s/o late Patel Venkanna, against the order dated 25. 6. 1977 passed by respondent No. 2 the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, in case No. LRT (2)2775/76-77 at Annexure-'f' to confer the occupancy rights in respect of several items among the land bearing Sy. No. 40/15b measuring 25 cents and Sy. No. 40/21 measuring 43 cento of Baikampady village of Mangalore Taluk. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the 2 items of the aforesaid lands situated at Baikampady village in Mangalore Taluk purchased under a registered sale dead on 26. 12. 1958 from its previous owner. Ever since from the date of purchase, he is in possession of the said 2 items of the land. But the deceased respondent No. 1 had filed form No. 7 claiming several items of the property. But, respondent no. 1 has not filed Form No. 7 before the 2nd respondent for grant of the occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid 2 items of land. Even then, the Land Tribunal conferred the occupancy rights in respect of these two items of land in question to the deceased respondent No. 1 and the petitioner was not impleaded as a necessary and proper party. Even in Form No. 7 filed by the deceased first respondent the name of Dr. Smt. B. Shantha mentioned as the owner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal conferring the occupancy rights in respect of these two items of lands in favour of the deceased respondent No. 1 is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions which is liable to be quashed. AS far as the delay is concerned, the petitioner contends that in the 3rt week of May, 1997, the officials attached to the office of respondent No. 5- the Special Land Acquisition Officer, K. I. A. D. B. , Baikampady, mangalore Division, visited the lands in question for the purpose of conducting survey. On enquiry, he came to know that the said two items of land are notified for being acquired for the purpose of B. P. C. L. , project. Therefore, the petitioner verified the records. The Revenue records reveal that the occupancy rights has been granted in favour of deceased Respondent No. 1. Therefore, immediately he obtained the endorsement at Annexure- 'e' from the Land Tribunal and filed this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. R-1 (A-F and H) and learned HCGP for respondent No. 2 and 3. None represents on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

(3.) IT is contended by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the two items of land in question have been purchased by the petitioner under registered sale dead from its original owner. Some how his mother's name has been entered against column No. 9 in respect of land in Sy. No. 40/15b as Santhamna Hengasu W/o Venkanna Shetty. Even though the name of the deceased respondent No. 1 has not been included in two items of the land in the form No. 7, the Tribunal is totally wrong in granting occupancy rights in respect of the two items and without notice to the petitioner, and therefore the impugned order has been passed. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Further, it is contended, even though the impugned order vas passed in the year 1977, the said fact came to his knowledge only in the third week of May, 1997 i. e. after 20 years. Immediately, he had approached the Land Tribunal to issue certified copy of the occupancy rights granted in favour of the deceased respondent No. 1. But they have issued an endorsement at Annexure-'e' stating that the entire records in respect of the said case submitted to the Land reforms Appellate Authority. The petitioner has purchased the two items of the land in the year 1950. The occupancy rights was granted by the Tribunal only on the basis of the alleged survey made by the Surveyor which discloses that the deceased respondent No. 1 was cultivating the land. One Chinnamma filed an appeal, which is came to be dismissed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.