IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.55983/2017 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. RAMANI W/O. MUDARA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT BALLUR HOUSE PAJIRU VILALGE BANTWALA TALUK D.K.-574 231.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI VINAY N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. LUIZA RODRIGUES W/O. LATE SAVER D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 2. SRI DOLPHY D’SOUZA S/O. LATE SAVER D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3. SRI VINCENT GERALD D’SOUZA S/O. LATE SAVER D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 4. SRI GILBERT MARCEL D’SOUZA S/O.LATE SAVER D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 5. SRI ASHOK ALWYN D’SOUZA S/O. LATE SAVER D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 6. SRI ROSHAN D’SOUZA S/O. LATE SAVER D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 7. SRI PRAVEEN IVAN D’SOUZA S/O.LATE SAVER D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 8. SMT. CELLI D’SOUZA D/O. LATE SAVER D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT BALLUR HOUSE PAJIRU VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK D.K.-574 231.
9. THE HQ ASSISTANT TO DC AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER LAND REFORMS D.C. COMPOUND MANGALURU TLAUK D.K.-575 001.
10. SRI JAYA S/O.CHANDU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT BALLUR HOUSE PAJIRU VILLAGE BANTWALA TALUK D.K.-574 231.
... RESPONDENTS (By SRI.BUDIHAL, H.C.G.P. FOR R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2006 PASSED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT IN LRT NO.(7A) 228/2000-01 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.9. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in two weeks.
2. The petitioner herein is claiming herself as the daughter-in-law of chalageni tenant in respect of land bearing Sy.No.32/2 measuring 7 Acres situate at Boliaru Village, Mangaluru Taluk for which she filed an application in Form No.7A along with Sri Jaya, S/o. Chandu.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Sy.No.32/2 for which application in Form No.7A was filed by her along with Sri Jaya, S/o. Chandu is with reference to land which was under cultivation and enjoyment of her father-in-law as chalageni tenant under the Mulageni tenant Basel D’souza, who had given chalageni chit to Angara, the father-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that after the death of Angara, his son Mudara, who is husband of petitioner continued the tenancy. After the death of her husband, petitioner is said to be in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the land in question as chalageni tenant. The petitioner claims occupancy right under her father-in- law Angara whose name appears as a tenant in the chalageni chit. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate the same.
4. Though the petitioner contended that her father-in-law Angara was in possession of the land as chalageni tenant as on the date the amendment to Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force and he continued to be in possession till his death, thereafter, his son Mudara and after the death of Mudara, the present petitioner who is his widow and one Sri Jaya, S/o. Chandu are in possession and cultivation of the said lands, the same is not supported by the records. Further, the RTC would indicate that the said lands are punja lands and they are in possession of the same since from 01.03.1974 and as on 01.11.1998 much prior to the amendment to Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force.
5. In that view of the matter, it is clearly seen that the competent authority, who was authorized to decide the application in Form No.7A has held that the petitioner herein and Sri Jaya, S/o. Chandu, who had filed Form No.7A were not able to establish their occupancy of land referred to in Form No.7A and as such, their application is rejected by order dated 30.08.2006 passed in LRT:7A:228:2000-01 which was the subject matter of appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal with some delay. The delay in the said appeal is condoned and thereafter, the matter was taken up for consideration on merits, wherein the Tribunal, after reconsidering the material available on record has come to the conclusion that at no point of time, the petitioner was in possession and cultivation of the land. Admittedly, there is a statement by the petitioner that subsequent to the amendment to Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force, the petitioner’s father-in-law Angara was in possession and cultivation of the same. It is clear that Angara, who is said to be the original tenant has not filed any application in Form No.7A in his life time and that there is no material on record to indicate the exact date of death of Angara. However, it is seen that application in Form No.7A is filed by the petitioner herein and another person by name Sri Jaya, S/o Chandu. The petitioner herein claims that Angara, the original tenant is her father-in-law. It is not stated as to what was the right of Sri Jaya, S/o. Chandu in respect of the land in question. In any event, the competent authority has rightly considered the application in Form No.7A and dismissed the same by order dated 30.08.2006 which is reconsidered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1130/2006.
6. As against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Court is of the considered opinion that no justifiable grounds are made out to consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of aforesaid land in their favour in Form No.7A.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ST