BASAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 207 measuring 13 acres 38 guntas, land bearing Sy. No. 208 measuring 9 acres and land bearing Sy. No. 209 situated at Kittali village. He also claims that on 09.06.1977, he filed Form No. 7 seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of those lands before the second respondent-Land Tribunal, vide Annexure-A. It is his further contention that on 22.05.1979, the second respondent-land Tribunal issued notice to all the interested parties including the petitioner and directed them to appear before it on 30.06.1979 along with necessary documents to prove their respective claims vide Annexure-B. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the said date i.e. 30.06.1979, he appeared before the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal took his signature on the order sheet and informed him that, the next date of hearing would be communicated to him. However, till date no such communication has been received by him. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 21.11.1988, he filed an application requesting the second respondent to consider his claim for grant of occupancy right vide Annexure-C. He also contends that since the Land Tribunal did not consider his request, he gave them one more application on 11.07.2018 to consider his Form No. 7 as at Annexure-D. Since the respondents-Authorities have not considered either his Form No. 7 or his subsequent representation, he has approached this Court through these writ petitions with a prayer for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent-Land Tribunal to consider Form No. 7 dated 09.06.1977 said to have been filed by him.

(2.) Learned Additional Government Advocate, on advance notice, is appearing for the respondents.

(3.) When this matter came up for preliminary hearing on 21.08.2018, after hearing the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed him to produce the certified copy of Anexures-A and B, since Annexures-A and B then produced were only the photo copies. Accordingly, the petitioner through a memo dated 27.08.2018 has produced the alleged originals of Annexures-A and B. Perused Annexures-A and B. Annexure-A is shown to be Form No. 7 which the petitioner claims to have filed. According to the petitioner, Annexures-A and B produced along with the memo dated 27.08.2018 are the certified copies of their originals. A perusal of both the documents at Annexures-A and B gives an impression that they are not the certified copies of the originals for the reason that though Annexure-A bears rubber stamp and entries are made with respect to date of application for copy and the date of delivery, admittedly, it does not bear the signature of the certified copy issuing authority. Unless it bears a copy application number and more importantly, the signature of issuing authority, the same cannot be taken as a certified copy. Similarly, Annexure-B though bears the rubber stamp shown to be of the Tahsildar, Badami, it does not bear the signature of the said authority but it is shown that, it is signed. However, there is no reason to believe that the said document bears the signature of the issuing authority. Further, it also does not bear any rubber stamp or details which the certified copy is required to bear like the name of the applicant, date of application, date of delivery of the certified copy including certified copy application number etc. As such, neither of these two documents could be considered as either original or as a certified copy of the alleged originals. Therefore, the very existence of the originals of Annexures-A and B itself is highly doubtful. Added to that, according to the petitioner, he was also summoned to appear before the Tribunal on 30.06.1979. When the Tribunal is said to have taken his signature on the order sheet, expect a statement to that effect, the petitioner has not produced any supporting document including the certified copy of the alleged order sheet stated to have been maintained by the Land Tribunal in the matter. All these aspects clearly cast a cloud of suspicion about the act of the petitioner filing Form No. 7 before respondent No. 2. Prima facie, in the absence of placing any material to show that any such application was made, the alleged subsequent representations at Annexures-C and D cannot be read and interpreted in the manner that they prove the petitioner filing Form No. 7 with the second respondent. As such, in the absence of any primary material to show that Form No. 7 was filed with second respondent within the appointed dated, there is no point in directing the second respondent or any respondents to consider the alleged representations at Annexures-C and D. As such, I am of the view that the petitions do not deserve to be proceeded further. Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed as devoid of merit. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach appropriate Court for appropriate remedy, if he is advised to do so.