G RATHNAVATI RAO Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Order dated 29-9-1981 vide proceedings bearing no. TNC LRY 77-271 TRI-3728; 76-77; vide annexure-D passed by the first respondent and praying to declare that, the sale effected by the legal heirs of the second respondent and the 3rd and 4th respondents in favour of the 5th respondent vide sale deed dated 19-2-1997 vide Annexure-E is null and void ab initio and that, the respondents have no right, title and interest in the lands bearing No. 230/1a and 231/11a of Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk, dakshina Kannada District (now Udupi District), in the interest of justice and equity, have presented the instant Writ Petition.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that, one Saraswathamma instituted O. S. No. 185/ 64 and O. S. No. 145/65 against one U. P. Pattabhi Rama Rao, for recovery of maintenance. The said suits came to be decreed and confirmed in R. A. Nos. 25/66 and 26/66 respectively, filed by the contesting parties. In spite of that, the decree has not been satisfied by the said Pattabhi Ram Rao. Hence, Smt. Saraswathamma has filed Execution Petition no. 60/71 for recovery of the decretal amount by the sale of immovable properties belonging to the said Pattabhi Ram Rao. Execution petition No. 60/71 was allowed and sale certificate was issued to her by the executing court on 14-11-1972. Thereafter, the Principal Munsiff, Udupi, wrote a letter dated 14-11-1972 to the Sub-Registrar, Udupi, informing him about the sale certificate issued in favour of Smt. Saraswathamma. When things stood thus, one Thammayya Kannada filed an application before the Land Tribunal, Udupi, for registration of occupancy rights in respect of lands in Survey No. 230/1a to an extent of 40 cents and in Survey No. 231/11a to an extent of 25 cents. In the said applications the land owners-U. B. Pattabhiramaiah was im-pleaded as a party and the subsequent purchaser Smt. Saraswathamma or her legal heir-Keshava Rao was not arrayed as a party. The land Tribunal proceeded and considered the application filed by one Thammaiah Kannada and granted occupancy rights to him by its order dated 29-9-1981, vide Annexure-D. Thereafter, said Thammaiah Kannada has sold the land in favour of fifth respondent. Subsequently, the State Government has initiated acquisition proceedings under the relevant provisions of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and certain lands belonging to the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Keshava rao and subsequently, the acquisition proceedings took place without notice to them and they were not aware of the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of Thammaiah kannada, as it was granted without implead-ing them as parties. Therefore, they are constrained to present the instant Writ Petition seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government pleader for first respondent.