LAWS(KAR)-1977-3-5

GOVINDA HARI KULKARNI Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL HUKKERI

Decided On March 08, 1977
GOVINDA HARI KULKARNI Appellant
V/S
LAND TRIBUNAL, HUKKERI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, granting occupancy rights in Survey Nos.141/4B and 142 of Ingli village, in favour of the 2nd Respt. It is not disputed that the lands in question were of the ownership of one Anand son of the petitioner herein. It is admitted that there was a registered partition in the year 1966 and these two lands fell to the share of Anand. Admittedly Anand is a minor.

(2.) The contention of Mr.A.V.Albal, learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the 2nd Respt has failed to implead Anand, who is the owner of these lands and who is a necessary and proper party to the proceeding. the 2nd Respt in his application filed in Form No.7 has impleaded the present petitioner as the owner of the land, which is incorrect. Under sub-sec(2) of Sec.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (to be hereinafter called the 'Act'), the Land Tribunal is required to cause a public notice published and it was also required to issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land. Anand is a person who is interested in the land as these two lands fell to his share in a partition between the present petitioner and his son Anand.

(3.) The 2nd Respt himself brought to the notice of the Tribunal by filing an application that Anand alias Harigovind Kulkarni is a owner of the land and he is the minor son of the present petitioner and that he had interest in the lands in question as contemplated under S.48A(2) of the Act, and therefore requested the Land Tribunal to add Anand as 2nd Respt represented by his natural father the present petitioner. The Land Tribunal inspite of such a request being made on behalf of the 2nd Respt has failed to implead Anand as a respondent and also has failed to issue notice to him as required under S. 48A (2) of the Act. It is a very serious error of law apparent on the face of the record.