ASHOKRAO JANARDHANARAO SHIRGURKAR Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL RAIBAG-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being the owner of the land survey No.17/4 measuring 3 acres 21 guntas of Sirgur village, Raibag, filed the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 31.12.1981 passed by the respondent-1 Land Tribunal, Raibag-II, granting occupancy right in respect of land survey No.17/4 apart from granting occupancy right in respect of other lands in favour of respondents-3 and 4 as well as 5.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this case are that the petitioner herein initially filed W.P.15168/82 challenging the said order. During the pendency of said writ petition responent-3 died therefore his LRs, were brought on record. During the pendency of the said writ petition an amendment was brought to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act constituting the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. THErefore this Court transferred the said writ petition to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum. Accordingly a case came to be registered as R.A.L.R.No.61/86. Again the case was renumbered as R.A.No.882/1987. When the said matter was pending respondent No.4 died and his LRs. Were brought on record. Again in 1990 the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was amended abolishing the Land Reforms Appellate Authorities. THErefore the petitioner herein filed civil petition in C.P.10230/90 with a prayer to call for the records and permit the petitioner to convert the appeal into writ petition. Accordingly the civil petition was allowed and this writ petition.

(3.) IT is further contended that the respondents have not produced any documents to show that the names of the respondents have been in column No.12(2) of the pahani and the Tribunal has not considered the objections filed by the petitioner. IT is further contended that when the delivery warrant has been issued by the civil court respondents set up a false tenancy and therefore delivery warrant could not be executed in respect of land survey No.17/4. Therefore the impugned order under challenge is liable to be quashed.