GURUPADAYYA Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, being aggrieved by the order dated 1st August 1992 bearing No. KLRM/inm/166/90-91 passed by first respondent vide Annexure B, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is the absolute owner and is in possession and cultivation of the land bearing Sy. No. 60/4 measuring 02 acres 04 guntas situate at Virapur village, Lingasugur Taluk and his name has been recorded in the record of rights as referred vide Annexure-A. When things stood thus, the father of third respondent has filed the application for grant of occupancy rights in Sy. Nos. 60/3 and 60/4 measuring 01 acre and 02 acres 04 guntas respectively situate at virapur Village, Lingasugur Taluk. Accordingly, occupancy rights have been registered in favour of the father of the third respondent, late Sri. Channayya Hiremath, by the Land tribunal, Lingasugur, by its order dated 1st august 1992 under Section 5 (3) of the karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. Petitioner came to know of the said order passed by the Land Tribunal, Lingasugur only when the third respondent filed the application before the Deputy Tahsildar, Nada kacheri, Gurugunta for transferring the land in his name, who in turn, has passed the order on 3th December 2004 to transfer the land in question in the name of the third respondent by. assigning valid reasons. The case of petitioner was that, his name is found in column nos. 12 and 9 for the agricultural years 1988-89 to 1992-93, and that, he came to know of the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar only in the month of December 2004 and immediately thereafter, he has filed the application before the second respondent to issue the certified copy of the order sheet maintained by the Land Tribunal vide Annexure-B. Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 1st August 1992, petitioner herein 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 counsel appearing for respondents.