MOTAMMA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 3. 8. 2002 Annexure-"s" of the Land tribunal, Devanahalli, rejecting the 3rd respondent's application in Form No. 7.

(2.) THE petition averments disclose that by order dated 16. 7. 1981 in Case No. LRF 16/74-75, the land Tribunal, Devanahalli, conferred occupancy rights over land measuring 2 acres 8 guntas in sy. No. 13 of Lingadheeragollahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, in favour of the 3rd respondent, pursuant to which, the petitioner claims to have purchased the said land from the 3rd respondent under a deed of sale dated 23. 1. 1988, Annexure "a", registered as Document No. 1191/87-88, in Book-1, Volume 1348, Pages 196 to 199, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, devanahalli, on 11. 2. 1988. It is further stated that on 9. 7. 1992 the Revenue Officials having drawn a mahazar, recording the factum of cultivation of land by the petitioner, the Tahsildar, by order dated 9. 10. 1997, directed the substitution of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. It appears the 4th respondent, the brother of the 3rd respondent filed W. P. No. 8439/1997 calling in question the order dated 16. 7. 1981 of the Land Tribunal, granting occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent, which was quashed by order dated 27. 11. 1997 and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent withdrew his application in Form No. 7 in collusion with the 4th respondent resulting in the order dated 3. 8. 2002 rejecting the application in Form No. 7. Hence this Writ petition.

(3.) SRI Amaresh A. Angadi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an interested person entitled in law to question the order of the Land Tribunal rejecting the application in Form No. 7 filed by the 3rd respondent and hence has the locus standi to maintain this petition. Elaborating on the said contention, learnedcounsel drew my attention to sub-section (2) of Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'act') to contend that although the petitioner purchased the land on 23. 1. 1988, he has an interest in the land on account of being in possession.