IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.40739 OF 2010(LR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVAPRASAD S/O LATE PUTTANNA SHANBHOG, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O TENKANIDIYOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI A.ANANDA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY ITS SECRETARY, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL BY ITS SECRETARY, UDUPI.
3. MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, TENKANIDIYOOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
4. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT NO.64, KELARKALABETTU VILLAGE, NO.66, TENKANIDIYOOR, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R4 SRI S.K.ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.39382 OF 2000 DATED 6.6.2001 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND TO HEAR THE WRIT PETITION ON MERITS WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO HAVE HIS SAY, WITH ANY OTHER RELIER/RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Smt.Sathyabhama, husband of Subbannayya filed Form No.7 for grant of lands. By the order dated 12-1-1981 lands were granted, as under:-
Sy.No.11:9 an extent of 0.34 cents, Sy.No.11:7A an extent 0.15 cents, Sy.No.11-13A an extent 0.13 cents Sy.No.11-13C an extent of 0.08 cents, Sy.No.11:12A an extent of 0.04 cents, Sy.No.17-2C an extent of 0.28 cents, Sy.No.14:12B to an extent of 0.12 cents Sy.No.11:6A an extent 0.05 cents, Sy.No.11:6C an extent of 0.07 cents & Sy.No.14:1B to an extent 0.17 cents situated at Tenkandiyoor village, Udupi Taluk and District. Questioning the same, the landlord filed writ petition No.39382/2000. During the pendency of the proceedings Smt.Sathyabhama filed an affidavit that there was no landlord and tenant relationship and that no rents were paid by her husband. That by mistake an application in Form No.7 has been filed. That she has no objection at all to quash the order of the Land Tribunal. Based on the same, the petition was allowed and the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside. Considering the orders thereof the grand-son Shivaprasad has filed this present petition seeking to review the Judgment passed in the earlier writ petition No.39382/2000.
2. The first contention is that his grand-mother was not mentally sound. Secondly that her grand-mother could not have given her consent for the order sought to be reviewed. Thirdly that there were different landlords for different lands in question 3. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view, that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The first contention that his grand-mother was mentally unstable, cannot be gone into by the writ Court. Even while considering the medical certificate produced, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted on that ground. The petitioner if advised would have to agitate his rights in a manner known to law.
4. The second contention that consent could not have been granted is also misplaced. The grand-mother was well justified in law to grant consent. She has given substantial reasons as to why she does not press her claim before the authorities. For all these reasons, the learned Single Judge accepted the affidavit and set aside the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order so far as this ground is concerned.
5. The third contention is that there are various lands under different landlords. That the order of the Tribunal would indicate that there were three landlords and therefore it is contended that the lands relatable to Sathyabhama and to the relevant landlord alone may form the subject matter of the order under Review, whereas the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Tribunal in its entirety. Even though the contention requires to be accepted in principle, on facts the same cannot be applied. There is no description in the order of the Tribunal which would indicate that different survey Numbers are relatable to different landlords. The Tribunal order would indicate that the landlords were common or otherwise for all the lands in question. The finding to the said effect is also not necessary to be laid down by this Court. It is sufficient to hold that the Land Tribunal did not make a distinction between the three landlords. Therefore, the said contention also does not merit any attention. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground to interfere. Petition is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-