IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL Nos.2847-2848 OF 2018(LR) BETWEEN:
MARIO PERES BHATT 59 YEARS SON OF GILBERT PHILIP PERIS BHATT RESIDING AT HOLIDAYIN, S.L.ROAD, FLANIR, MANGALURU D.K DISTRICT - 575 004 BY GPA HOLDER MR. MARIAN PERES BHATT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.S R SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING DR B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE 9TH LAND TRIBUNAL MANGALURU TALUK, MANGALURU - 570 001 REPRSENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. VASATHI SON OF SMT.GIRIJA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS:
3(A) SUNIL SON OF VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3(B) SUDESH SON OF VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 3(C) SANATH SON OF VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 3(D) CHANDAPPA POOJARY SON OF MARAPPA POOJARY 65 YEARS 4. SADANANDA DAUGHTER OF SMT. GIRIJA 51 YEARS 5. DEVAKI DAUGHTER OF SMT.GIRIJA 49 YEARS.
6. AMITHA, 47 YEARS DAUGHTER OF SMT.GIRIJA 7. CHANDRASHEKAR SON OF SMT.GIRIJA 45 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT KELLARAIKODI POOJARY HOUSE, THIRUVAIL VILLAGE, VAMANJOOR POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 028 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.S.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ROOPESHA. B, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEALS AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 1/8/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP 35794-795 OF 2013 AND THEREBY GRANT RELIEF OF QUASHING BOTH THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE 2ND RESPONDENT I.E., THE PRIMARY ORDER DATED 23/7/1981 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ITS AMENDING ORDER DATED 2/12/1998 AT ANNEXURE-A AND AS PRAYED FOR IN THE SAID WRIT PETITIONS.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.35794-795 of 2013. It is contended that the remand of the matter to the Land Tribunal is a futile exercise in as much as the material would indicate that some of the lands are punja lands in respect of which no tenancy claim could be made. The Land Tribunal would not even have jurisdiction to entertain the same. However, we are of the view that the nature of the land is not the subject matter of dispute presently. The reason assigned by the learned Single Judge is that the modification made by the Land Tribunal is in the name of a dead person without issuing notice to the concerned legal representatives. Therefore, for that limited purpose, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for consideration.
2. We are of the view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge being just and proper no interference is called for. The question with regard to nature of land is not necessary for determination at this stage. Necessarily, the Tribunal would take into account the contentions with regard to its jurisdiction to decide on such lands or otherwise. The writ petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed. However, all contentions are kept open.
The pending applications stand disposed of.
SD/- SD/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv