IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION Nos.52823 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O SIDDAIAH, TOGARAGUNTE VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. ...PETITIONER (By Sri G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU – 572 101.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.
3. LAKSHMAIAH S/O ERANINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS TOGARAGUNTE VILLAGE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.09.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REVISION PETITION NO.5/2014 [ANNEXURE-G] AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.07.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REVISION PETITION NO.27 OF 2017 [ANNEXURE-H].
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is impugning the order dated 26.09.2017 in Revision Petition No.5 of 2014 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which is affirmed by the very same Tribunal in Review Petition No.27 of 2017 vide order dated 20.07.2018.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
Petitioner is stated to be an applicant seeking occupancy rights in respect of 4 acres 19 guntas of land in old Sy.No.27 (new Sy.No.72) of Thogaragunte Village, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. According to her, an application was filed on 03.07.1994 seeking regularization of her alleged unauthorized cultivation of the aforesaid extent which was considered by the Committee for regularization of her alleged unauthorized cultivation in its proceedings dated 21.07.1999 vide proceedings No.LNDR1(CH) 293/91-92/PR 471/99-2000.
3. The said order was subject matter of challenge by the third respondent herein before the second respondent – Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.23:2000- 01 on the ground that the petitioner herein is the wife of one Siddaiah who is owner of an extent of 24 acres of land in the very same village. Hence, it was contended that the petitioner herein is not entitled to seek regularization of alleged unauthorized cultivation in Sy.No.27 of Thogaragunte Village, Chelur Hobli. The said appeal filed by the third respondent was allowed by order dated 06.11.2004, which was subject matter of challenge before the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner in an appeal filed under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in R.A.No.20/2004-05 which came to be dismissed by order dated 28.10.2013 in confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.29 of 2010.
4. As against that, the petitioner herein has approached Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing revision in Revision Petition No.5 of 2014 which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 26.09.2017, which was further subjected to review in Review Petition No.27 of 2017 before the very same Tribunal where the review petition was also dismissed by order dated 20.07.2018. These two orders of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal which are in concurrence with the order of first respondent – Deputy Commissioner and as well as the Assistant Commissioner is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.Perused the material available on record and also the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner as well as the orders passed in Revision petition and Review Petition. On going through the said orders, it is clearly seen that the petitioner is unable to establish that she belongs to family of landless persons and that there is no other property available to her family other than land bearing Sy.No.27 measuring 4 acres 19 guntas which she is claiming as the land in her unauthorized occupation and cultivation.
6. Hence, both the Authorities as well as the Appellate Tribunal have rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for regularization, which cannot be interfered by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HD