LAWERENCE MENDONSA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 27-5-1998 in c. dis. rev. sr. 1/87-88 passed by the respondent 1, the assistant commissioner, kundapura, copy at Annexure-B to writ petition, confirming the order of grant dated 15-6-1972 made by the respondent 3, the tahsildar, karkala, copy at Annexure-A to writ petition, order dated 12-1-1993 in case No. Rap. 83 of 1989-90 passed by the respondent 2, the special deputy commissioner in the second appeal, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition. Confirming the order dated 7-8-1996 in rev. 43 of 1993 dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner and lastly the order dated 7-8-1996 in revision petition No. Rev. 43 of 1993, copy as at Annexure-D to writ petition, passed by the Karnataka appellate tribunal, the respondent 4 herein. Besides the petitioner had also challenged the original order dated 15-6-1972 in No. Dis. Fdr 709/71-72 passed by the respondent 3, the tahsildar, karkala, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri sanath kumar shetty, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent 5, Sri chandranath ariga and the learned additional government Advocate sri m. n. ramanajaneya gowda, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, the revenue authorities in the hierarchy and the respondent 4, the Karnataka appellate tribunal.

(3.) THE matter requires narration of the facts of the case in brief to deal with the matter effectively and the same is as hereunder: that, the respondent 5 was the wargadar of kadim land in s. Nos. 87/8, 87/9 and 87/11 of nitte village and an extent of 5 acres 27 cents of land in s: No. 669/1 was the kumki land, which was enjoyed by the respondent 5 as the wargadar of the above warg lands (henceforth referred to for convenience as the 'subject land' ). That, the said warg lands were leased originally to one estine mendonsa by the respondent 5. She was also enjoying the kumki land for better cultivation of the warg land tenanted. That, the said estine mendonsa had filed form 7 before the jurisdictional land tribunal for grant of above warg lands and the above three items of warg lands accordingly came to be granted to her and that the petitioner who is none other than the son of the said estine mendonsa claimed that the subject land was also enjoyed by his mother as the kumki land to the warg lands granted to her by way of occupancy right, no matter that the same was subsequently granted to the respondent 4 separately by the respondent 3, the tahsildar without notice to her. that, the respondent 3, the tahsildar had granted the subject land on 15-6-1972 in case No. Dis. kdr 709/71-72 to the respondent 5 and alsq issued a saguvali chit to her. Having been aggrieved thereto, estine mendonsa had filed an appeal in c. dis. rev. sr. 1 of 1987-88 before the assistant commissioner challenging the above grant and that the said appeal came to be dismissed on 27-5-1989 and that thereafter the said order was challenged before the special deputy commissioner by the petitioner, he being the successor-in-title as the said estine mendonsa died in the meantime. That, the second appeal also came to be dismissed by the special deputy commissioner and thereafter, the petitioner herein filed a revision petition in rey. No. 43 of 1993 before the Karnataka appellate tribunal and that the Karnataka appellate tribunal on reliance being placed on the reported decision of the apex court in the case of puttahonnamma v gangadhara murthy, dismissed the revision petition as the one not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court in challenging all the above three orders.