JAYALAKSHAMMA Vs. N SRINIVASA SASTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant Civil Petition praying to treat the appeal as writ petition and to dispose of the matter on merits on the ground that, in view of the abolition of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, in view of amendment of the Land Reforms Act.

(2.) WHEN this matter had come up for consideration before this Court on 14.2.2008 and 19.2.2008, this Court had directed the learned Government Pleader appearing for 2nd respondent to secure the original records from the file of the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.214/1987 and also the records of the Land Tribunal. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Government Pleader appearing for 2nd respondent has produced the original records. After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file at threadbare and after microscopic evaluation, what it emerges is that, petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 5th October 1979 bearing No.LRF:ATC: 514:75-76 has filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore District in No. LRA No.214/1987. WHEN the said appeal was pending adjudication before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore, District, Bangalore, the Appellate Authority has been abolished in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, and parties are permitted to file Civil Petition before this Court under Section 17 of the Karnataka Amendment Act 18 of 1990. Accordingly, petitioner has filed this civil petition. Further it is significantly to note that, the claim made by petitioner is in respect of Sy.No.378/1 measuring 14 guntas situated at Jigani village an Hobli Anekal Taluk. WHEN the matter had come-up for consideration before the land Tribunal, Anekal on 5th October 1979, petitioner"s husband has withdrawn his claim made in respect of Sy.No.378/1 measuring 14 guntas as the same is a "Devadaya Inam Land". However not being satisfied with the same, petitioner has filed an appeal. Once the husband of the petitioner had appeared before the Land Tribunal and withdrawn his claim in respect of land bearing SY.No.378/1, the question of again filing an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority by the petitioner in respect of the said land does not arise. WHEN the matter was settled as early as in the year 1979, again reopening the case by the petitioner at this stage is not justifiable. Therefore I do not find any good grounds to entertain this Civil Petition.