M.LINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are said to be children of one Muni Nagappa. They have filed this petition seeking for issuance of mandamus directing the respondent to hold an inquiry in respect of the application filed for grant of occupancy rights at SI.No.756 dated 26.12.1974 pertaining to Sy.Nos.259, 263/1, 25, 26, 73 situate at Begur Village, Bangalore South Taluk in so far as land bearing Sy.No.25 measuring 8.5 acres and for a further direction to the respondents to hold an inquiry and dispose of the application filed in Form 7 after recording the statement of the parties and after giving opportunity to the petitioners, in accordance with law.

(2.) According to the petitioners, land bearing Sy.No.25 measuring 8.5 , acres situate at Begur Village, Bangalore South was a shanbogh inamthi land and the holders of the village office have executed a lease deed on 9.5.1951 - Annexure A. The revenue records - Annexure B ceries, stand in the name of the father of the petitioners. The petitioners ' fathc died in the year 1983 and he had all original documents including Form 7 dated 26.12.1974 which was filed and registered at Sl.No.756. A copy of the extract which has been issued to the petitioners evidencing the filing of Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights is at Annexure C. It is the case of the petitioners that they have not been issued with notice. The statement of the father of the petitioners or the petitioners were not recorded. Their father was in a serious condition and he was not in a position to speak anything or understand for a period of 3 to 4 years prior to his death. Under these circumstances, there is no proceedings which came to be disposed of, as such, it is wrong and illegal on the part of the respondents in recording a finding that the application came to be disposed of in the year 1981. If it is disposed of, the respondents be directed to give a certified copy of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in this regard. It is further averred, after the death of the petitioners ' father, petitioners have filed an application for entering their names in the revenue records. The Tahsildar has mutated the names of the petitioners and also directed, if any rights are to be established, the same can be agitated before the Civil Court. Against this order, appeal came to be filed by the contesting respondents before the Assistant Commissioner which came to be allowed and the revision filed by the petitioners before the Special Deputy Commissioner came to be dismissed. The proceedings under S. 136(2) and (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is a separate subject matter and would be challenged at the appropriate time. In the writ petition, petitioners confine only for a direction to the Land Tribunal to place Form 7 before the Land Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

(3.) According to the petitioners, land has been re -granted in favour of the holders of the village office on 19.3.1975 by the Assistant Commissioner and after the re -grant right of the petitioners has to be adjudicated as such, they are before this Court. The petitioners made an application that if any proceedings of the Land Tribunal was conducted or any order hi been passed, the same may be given to them and an application for certified copies also came to be filed. However, an endorsement dated 19.3.2003 Annexure D has been issued by the Tahsildar that there are no such proceedings and no such orders have been passed by the Land Tribunal and the file is not available. But the application filed by the petitioners' father came to be registered and has been entered in the Register and therefore, respondents should produce the proceedings about the disposil of said application filed by their father. The land is an inamthi land and valuable land and petitioners suspect that there must be collusion between the contesting respondents and the authorities so far as non -availability of the records and the authorities may not give the certified copies of the order and the proceedings or hold an inquiry. Hence, this petition raising several grounds stating that petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property in question. It has not come to the knowledge of the petitioners that Form 7 filed by their father came to be disposed of but petitioners were under the impression that records may be summoned by the Deputy Commissioner. A memo has been filed in this regard however,the revisional authority without passing any order, has rejected the same, Since Form 7 filed by their father has not been disposed of, petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondent authority to maintain statusquo between the parties regarding the property in question. It is their case, if statusquo is not granted till the inquiry is conducted, respondents may part with the property.