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.14403/2018 (LR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI B. VENKATESH REDDY S/O. LATE BHADRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NARAYANAGHATTA VILLAGE MUTTANALLUR, SARJAPUR HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562 106. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI T.N.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL REPTD. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562 106.
3. SRI NANJUNDESHWARA DIETY, REPTD. BY TAHASILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562 106. ...RESPONDENTS (BY.SRI.B.S.BUDIHAL, H.C.G.P. FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.07.1982 PASSED BY THE PRESIDENT, LAND TRIBUNAL, ANEKAL IN CASE NO.LRF.INA.534/1980-81 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, ANEKAL TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS REJECTION OF CLAIM IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.146/1 MEASURING 30 GUNTAS SITUATED AT NARAYANAGHATTA VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 3. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in two weeks.
2. The petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 17.07.1982 passed by the second respondent-Land Tribunal in case No.LRF.INA.534/80- 81 which is at Annexure-B. Admittedly, the challenge to the said order is not in its entirety. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order only with reference to rejection of his claim for grant of land bearing Sy.No.146/1 measuring to an extent of 30 guntas situate at Narayanaghatta Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk.
3. Admittedly, this writ petition is filed with delay of 37 years. The order impugned would indicate that the claim of the petitioner so far as Sy.No.146/1 measuring to an extent of 30 guntas is rejected on the ground that the said land was not only an inam land but, also was not under the cultivation of the petitioner, inasmuch as there was no record to show that he was in possession and cultivation of the same as per the RTC pertaining to the said land. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner is rejected by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal by its order dated 17.07.1982.
4. The petitioner has accepted the said order, got the lands which are granted in his favour mutated to his name and has been in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the same. However, he has now chosen to challenge the said order which was passed 37 years ago for the reasons best known to him. In any event, the grounds urged in the instant writ petition would not infuse confidence in the mind of this Court to consider the writ petition for verifying the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 17.07.1982 which was passed 37 years ago.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no grounds are made out to consider the prayer of the petitioner herein for grant of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.146/1.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ST