VENKATACHAR Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL K R PET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Venkatachari of Maduvinakodi, Krit shnarajapet Talukt, Mandya District has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari or such other suitable writ, direction, or order quashing the notices bearing No. L.R.F. A. 631/74-75 dated 17-4-1978 (Ext-G) and No.L.R.F.CR- 105/78-79 dated 10-8-1978: (Ex-G) and No- L.R-F.C.R. 105|78-79 dated 10-8-1978 (Ex-J) issued to him by the Special Tahsildar, K. R. Pet, Taluk (respondent-2 herein); a writ of Prohibition or such other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respcndent-2 not to proceed to evict the petitioner from the land in question until final orders are passed by the Land Tribunal, K. R. Pet Taluk (respondent-1 herein) wherein the application filed by him in form No.7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the Act) is pending enquiry; and also a writ of Mandamus to the Land Tribunal, K. R. Pet Taluk directing it to hold the enquiry on the application he has filed claiming occupancy rights in respect of the land in question.

(2.) Sy. No. 106/2 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas and situated in Maduvinakodi village, K. R. Pet Taluk, originally belonged to one Ahobala Sastry. After his death the name of his wife Lakshmidevamma was shown as the kathedar of this land in the relevant revenue records. Subsequently the name of Krishnappa (respondent-4 herein) is shown as the kathedar. In his objection statement Krishnappa has stated that Lakshmidevamma had died in the month of November, 1971, and that under a will executed by her she had bequeathed the land in his favour He now claims to be the owner of the land.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the land in question is a tenanted land, and that the petitioner has been cultivating the same as a lessee. Respondent-4 claims that he is a Soldier and as such is entitled to resume this land under S. 15 of the Act. He is said to have retired from service on 1-11-1977. Seeking resumption of the land he approached respondent-2, who in turn, having taken a decision that respondent-4 was en itled to resume this land has called upon the petitioner by the aforesaid notices to deliver vacant possession of the same to respondent-4.