JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.3 in R.A.No.818/2005 dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru ['Tribunal' for short] whereby the order passed in LRF 7 [A] 179/1999-2000 dated 15.10.2004 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru District [respondent No.2] has been set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the Special Land Acquisition Officer for re-consideration.

(2.) It is contended that the respondent No.5 had filed application in Form-7A for grant of 1 acre 28 guntas of land in Sy.No.13 of Laxmisagara village, belonging to the petitioner, claiming that his father late Dodda Kempaiah and his uncle late Chikka Kempaiah were jointly cultivating the land as on 01.03.1974. Chikka Kempaiah had filed Form-7A, occupancy rights were granted to him for 3 acres 20 guntas whereas father of respondent No.5 late Dodda Kempaiah did not file Form-7. The respondent No.5 has filed application under Form-7A under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ['Act' for short]. Special Officer for grant of land rejected the application of the respondent No.5 on the ground that the occupancy rights were granted for one of the family member, no other member of the same family is entitled for further grant. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in R.A.No.818/2005, wherein the order of the respondent No.2 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Special Officer/Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel Sri.Vinay Swamy.C, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land in question was in the possession of the petitioner on the relevant date i.e., on 01.11.1998 as per the revenue records. The Form-7A filed by the respondent No.5 does not reveal the land owned/tenanted by him as on 01.11.1998. The respondent No.5 was holding lands to the extent of 2 Hectares of 'D' class land and has sold certain portion of the land but still possessing 6 acres of land even as on the date. Learned counsel referred to Annexures-J, K, L, M, M1, M2 and M3 to the writ petition -- copies of the sale deeds and RTC extracts to substantiate his arguments in as much as the respondent No.5 possessing more than 2 hectors 'D' class land.