VENKATAPPA Vs. L N DATTATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Venkatappa made an application in Form No.7 to the Land Tribunal, Tarikere, on 26th December 1975 for grant of occupancy right in respect of 3 acres 12 guntas of agricultural land in S.No. 141 of Hulsoor village, Lakkavalli Hobali, Tarikert Taluk. Respondent-1, Dattatri is the holder of the said land. Though the said application was made after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under sub-sec (1) of Sec.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), no cause was shown for condonation of delay in making the application.

(2.) The Tribunal straightaway issued notice in Form No.9. Parties and their witnesses were examined and the Tribunal by its order in LRT.3/ 1975-76 allowed the application and granted occupancy right to the appellant. That order was challenged by respondent-1, before this Court in WPNo.1995 of 1977 in which Rule Nisi was issued. The appellant did not appear to contest. The matter came up for final disposal before Bhimiah, J.. who, by his order dated 9-8-1977 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Tribunal. The reason given by the learned Judge for quashing the order of the Tribunal is that it is based on no evidence.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has come up in appeal. The main ground urged in this appeal is that the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh. When this appeal came up for hearing on 1st December, 1977, Sri A.V.Albal, learned Counsel for Respondent-1 raised the contention that the entire proceedings before the Tribunal commencing with the issue of notice in Form No.9 was without jurisdiction as the application for grant of occupancy right was made beyond the period of time prescribed under sub-8ec. (1) of Sec.48A of the Act, that the appellant had shown no cause for condonation of delay, for making the application beyond the time provided and that the Tribunal had not admitted the application. Since the question thus raised is an important question of law, we directed that the State of Karnataka should be impleaded as a party-respondent and notice should be issued to the High Court Government Advocate. The matter was adjourned to this day for further hearing. Today we heard learned Counsel for the parties including Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa for the State.