KALYANAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of the order dated 12.9.1977, a true cppy of which is at Exhibit-G, passed by the 2nd respondent Land Tribunal, Magadi, granting tht application made by Honnamma (3rd respondent) for registration, of occupancy is challenged by Kalyananma (the petitioner) who claims to be the owner of all the items of land except Sy. No.31 situate in Sankegbarta Kaval of Magadi Taluk over which occupancy was granted in favour of 3rd respondent, in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The matter arises in this way: The 3rd respondant made an application in Form No.7 on 31.12.1974 as required under Section 48A (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') claiming occupancy in respect of 2 items of land Sy.Nos. 30 and 31 in Sankeghatta Kaval and 4 items of land Sy. Nos. 8913, 90, 88/10 and 88/2 in Hullenahalli Village of Magadi Taluk. She did not show the petitioner as her landlord in the application. Instead she mentioned her own name in the landlord's column. However the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and contested the claim of the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal passed the order Exhibit-G granting the application made by the 3rd respondent. Hence this writ, petition by the petitioner.

(3.) Sri R. Anantharaman, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in the course of his Argument pointed out two infirmities among others to assail the impugned order. They are,: - (1) the enquiry conducted by the Tribunal was not in accordance with law; and (2) that all the members of the Tribunal who took part m the proceeding and sal as members of the Tribunal in deciding the case, have not signed the order in token oi their approval of the order to be issued and also with the reasons given.