V BHUJANGA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28. 8. 1980 passed by the land Tribunal, Kundapura, in LRT- 11-160-TRI-10929/80-81 granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No. 3-Shesha Shetty.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this case are that the petitioner herein said to be purchaser of the various items of lands bearing Sy. No. 95 and 96/3 from the original owners Manjamma, chikkamma and Paddamma, who are the daughters of Smt. Y. Nagamma Shedthi in the year 1972. Because of prohibition for registration of immovable properties, the said three persons registered three separate sale deeds on 06. 9. 1974. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3-Shesha Shetty who is none other than the father-in-law of the petitioner filed form No. 7 on 21. 12. 1975 claiming occupancy rights of various items of the landed properties belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner's name has been shown in Column No. 1 of Form no. 7 at item No. 10 as Bhujanga Shetty. Though respondent No. 3 filed Form No. 7 including the name of the petitioner, the Tribunal has not issued any notice as contemplated under Rules 17 and 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules and without issuing notice either to the petitioner or to the general public passed the impugned order in favour of respondent No. 3, even though he was not at all cultivating the said land. The impugned order under challenge is not a speaking order, so also the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the land was vested to the government clearly indicates that in order to defraud the rights of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 filed a false Form No. 7 and on the guise of that Form No. 7, the Tribunal had granted occupancy rights, which is illegal and incorrect. It is the further case of the petitioner that the name of respondent No. 3 does not find a place in the records of rights register for the year 1967-1968. If he had been cultivating the land as a tenant under the previous owner, the Revenue Authorities ought to have shown his name in the records of rights register. Therefore, the impugned order under challenge is liable to be set aside.

(3.) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and perused the records.