SARSWATHI SHETTY Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is the owner of immovable property in survey no. 293-1 A, measuring 74 cents and that it is punja land. It is claimed that it was granted to the petitioner on 24-12-1957. It is contended that one Kinjanna Moolya was a tenant under the petitioner in respect of survey no. 180-10b, measuring 4 cents, 180-13 measuring 34 cents, 180-18a, measuring 29 cents, 180-27, measuring 1 acre 89 cents and 180-24a measuring 4 cents.

(2.) IT transpires that the said Moolya had filed an application in Form No, 7 in respect of the above lands, while including the land in survey No. 293-1a, measuring 30, in respect of which, he was not at all a tenant. The petitioner would emphasize that it was not leased to the said Moolya. The land was not even fit for cultivation. The condition mentioned in the Grant order, in favour of the petitioner, itself would indicate that it was not fit for cultivation. However, the Tribunal is said to have granted occupancy rights, in favour of the said Moolya, in respect of survey no. 293-1a2, as well. The husband of the petitioner had represented the petitioner before the Tribunal and opposed the claim in respect of the said survey number, inspite of which, the same has been granted by its order dated 24-12-2007, in TNC No. 4249-74-75. It is this which is under challenge.

(3.) IT is contended that the inordinate delay in challenging the petition, was that the petitioner's husband was prosecuting the matter on her behalf. Since the petitioner had no objection in grant of occupancy rights in respect of other lands, the Tribunal has proceeded on an erroneous presumption that there was no objection in respect of the said survey no. 293-1a2 also. Further, the order of the tribunal was never communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner and her husband remained unaware of the grant of occupancy rights in respect of survey No. 293-1a2. The petitioner suddenly realized that the same was also the subject matter of the grant of occupancy rights only in the month of October 2008, when respondent Nos. . 2 to 8 tried to alienate the same to third parties for non-agricultural purpose. It is thereafter, that the petitioner has obtained a certified copy of the order of the Tribunal and has filed the present writ petition.