HASEENA BEGUM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 26th july 2006 passed in Appeal No. 450/2004 on the file of the Karnataka appellate Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure T, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order dated 31st October 2003 passed by the first respondent in proceedings No. UL/nd/cr. 55/2003-04 granting the land in favour of respondents 4 to 7 in Survey No. 107 measuring an extent of 02 acres, situate at Nellur Village, Channagiri Tauk, Davangere District. The petitioner has further sought for quashing the grant of land by respondents 2 and 3 as per Annexure C, which are the lands in unauthorized occupation and possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question which was granted to respondents 4 to 7 illegally without the authority of law, whose Sl. Nos. are disclosed as 73 to 76 each granted 0. 30 acres of land. Further, she has sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to treat all her applications vide annexures D, E, F, G, H, J and Revision petition by virtue of the decision rendered in ILR 1997 Kar. 3415 to regularize the lands in question and to consider her case before the Committee constituted under Section 92 A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the respondents 2 and 3. Further, she has sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from the suit lands in question and to declare the impugned action of respondents 1 to 3 and the Kamataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore as illegal wrong and against the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in ilr. 1997 Kar. 3415 and against the intention of the legislature under section 92-A of the Act and to set aside the order of grant made in favour of respondents 4 to 7 granting 0. 30. acres situate at Channagiri taluk.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition id that, petitioner herein has has been cultivating the land measuring an extent of 02 acres in Sy. No. 107 situate at Nellur Village, Channagiri taluk for the past four decades. Earlier, petitioner's husband was owning the adjacent lands and has been unauthorizedly cultivating the adjacent lands towards the lands in Sy. No. 107 measuring 02 acres. The said land was a barren land and was non cultivable. Petitioner, after spending huge sums of money, amounting to a sum of Rs. O3 lakhs, has developed the land and grown coconut, and other jungle wood trees and also has built a farm house. The petitioner has also dug the bore well and has covered the entire land by fencing with barbed wire. Further, the case of petitioner is that, she had filed the application for regularization of unauthorized cultivation of the said land and that, the said application filed by petitioner is neither considered nor disposed of by respondents 1 and 2. It is her specific case that, the competent authority, without notifing, the petitioner and without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to have; hersay in matter, unilaterally, has granted the land in question in favour of respondents 4 to 7 at the rate of 30 guntas each by its order dated 31st October 2003. Assailing the correctness of the order passed fey the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, Davangere dated 1st October 2003 in proceeding No. UNLD. CR. 55/2003-04, petitioner has filed the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 450/2004. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Appellate Tribunal on 26th July 2006. The appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant material made available by the State Representative and after affording opportunity to both parties, has dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioner and confirmed the order dated 31st October 2003. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the competent authority dated 31sl October 2003 and the judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal, confirming the order passed by the competent authority, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1to 3. Respondent No. 4 to 7 are served and un-represented. The objections filed by Additional Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 is taken on record.