IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.52951/2018(LR) BETWEEN SRI. MUKRI HASSAN S/O SYED MAKRI HASAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KODI VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT – 576106 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VISHWAJITH SHETTY.S, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001 2. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR LAND REFORMS BRANCH TALUK OFFICE UDUPI TALUK - 576101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ANNEXURE-A DATED 20.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE FORM 7A DATED 15.12.1998 AS PER ANNEXURE ‘B’ FILED BY THE PETITIONER CLAIMING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner herein is seeking to quash the endorsement bearing No.C.A.3708/16-17 dated 20.01.2017 (vide Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) issued by the second respondent - Deputy Tahasildar, Land Reforms Branch, Taluk office, Udupi Taluk. By the said endorsement, the second respondent has intimated the petitioner that on verification of the records, it was found that neither his mother, Smt. Kunjithabi, nor any other person had filed any declaration in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 35 cents in Sy. No.18/5C situate in Kodi village, Udupi Taluk, and in the absence of any Form-7A filed by his mother, it was not possible for him to issue copy of Form 7A as sought by the applicant - petitioner herein.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question belonged to one Smt. Vagdevi Amma and it was taken on lease by his father, Syed Makri Hasan. After the death of his father, his mother, Smt. Kunjithabi, continued in possession and cultivation of the said land as a tenant. Though his mother was in possession and cultivation of the said land as tenant as on 01.03.1974 i.e., the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, inadvertently, she failed to file Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the said land. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequent to coming into force of Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, his mother filed Form No.7A, copy of which is at Annexure ‘B’ to the petition, on 15.12.1998 seeking grant of the said land. However, no proceeding was initiated pursuant to the said application. Smt. Kunjithabi is said to have expired on 19.05.2010. It is stated that subsequently, the petitioner approached the second respondent – Deputy Tahasildar to ascertain the status of the application in Form No.7A filed by his mother and submitted copy of Form No.7A available with him. At that time, he was informed by the second respondent that the original Form No.7A was not available in the records. According to the petitioner, there is reference to the application in Form No.7A filed by his mother in the register maintained in the office of the second respondent. Hence, he applied for certified copy of Form 7A filed by his mother, in response to which, the second respondent has issued the impugned endorsement referred supra.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the material available on record.
5. Though the petitioner herein has produced a photocopy of Form No.7A said to have filed by his mother, Smt.Kunjithabi, there is nothing indicated on the said document to demonstrate that it was filed before the competent authority and that competent authority after receiving the same, had assigned any receiving number or initiated proceedings based on such application. Though the petitioner claims that there is an entry with reference to the application filed by his mother in the register maintained in the office of the second respondent, he has not made any effort to obtain certified copy of the extract of the said register and produce the same before this Court. In the fact situation, this Court would observe that by producing photocopy of Form No.7A vide Annexure ‘B’ to the petition, an attempt is being made by the petitioner to demonstrate as if the said application was filed by his mother. Even assuming that such an application was filed by the petitioner’s mother, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is the only person, who is competent to challenge the same as the petition is silent about the other legal heirs of Smt. Kunjithabi.
6. In any event, on going through the entire petition, it is seen that the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent appears to be just and proper inasmuch as there is no material on record to demonstrate that such an application (Form No.7A) was filed by petitioner’s mother during her lifetime seeking grant of the aforesaid land as claimed by the petitioner.
7. Therefore, the question of issuing notice to the respondents in this petition filed on such flimsy grounds does not arise and the petition does not merit consideration.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to file his memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma