GIRIYAPPA GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have sought for quashing the order of the Land Tribunal, Theertahalli dated 26. 12. 2002. According to the petitioners who are the legal representatives of the original applicant namely Giriyappa Gowda, land in Sy. No. 44/6 measuring 4. 30 acres of Kadegadde Village was owned by one D. N. Subba Rao, Kolluranna Gowda and Rudraiah as joint owners. Earlier, an application was filed by them on 23. 8. 1974 in respect of some other properties regarding which the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights after enquiry by its order dated 5. 7. 1977 in respect of Sy. No. 74 and other survey numbers. Subsequently, after the order of the Land Tribunal, in respect of different survey number the petitioner filed Form 7 which is dated 19. 5. 1979 which came to be rejected. Hence this petition.

(2.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioners, counsel representing the respondents and the Government Pleader. According to the petitioners' counsel, in so far as items in second Form 7 filed by them, the Land Tribunal did not consider it earlier and the second Form 7 filed was well within time and could have been adjudicated by the Land Tribunal. Instead, stating that it is a second such application being filed, it has rejected the application which is not proper. Accordingly, petitioners have sought for quashing the order of the Tribunal and to direct the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in respect of the said survey number also. Per contra, counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde and Ors vs. Venkaraman Manjappa Hegde and Ors ILR 2000 KAR 3170 wherein this Court held that second application is not maintainable. Government Pleader submitted that as per Rule 19 of the Land Reforms Rules, it is for the applicant to make a mention of all such tenanted lands at a stretch and to seek for adjudication. Already a claim is made by the applicant in respect of some of the properties which has been adjudicated and once again the petitioners are seeking for one more property on the ground that it had been left of in the first application firm which is not maintainable.

(3.) IN the instant case, it is seen the first application is filed in respect of several properties which has been considered and the Land Tribunal by order dated 27. 12. 1979 granted occupancy rights but this is second such application and although according to the petitioner it is not mentioned in the first application filed and also it is against different person and is also filed well within time of the appointed dated i. e. , 30. 6. 1979, that is to say the second application is filed on 9. 5. 1979, that application ought to have been considered by the Land Tribunal and he ought to have granted occupancy rights.