P MUNISWAMY Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL ANEKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the first instance, notice on rule was issued. The 3rd respondent, who is the only contesting respondent, entered appearance through his Advocate). Records of the proceedings before the Tribunal have also been secured. When the matter is taken up for hearing under 'B' group, the counsel for the petitioner is not present. The counsel for the 3rd respondent stages that the matter may be taken up for final hearing since the point involved in this writ petition is a short, atnd simple one. Accepting the submission, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This writ petition one under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 7-11-1979 at Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent Land Tribunal, Anekal, rejecting the application made by the petitioner for being registered as an occupant in respect of two items of lands of which, the 3rd respondent is the owner of S. No. 322 situate in Marsoor village of Anekal Taluk in Bangalore Dist.

(3.) The material facts leading to this writ petition may be stated as under: The petitioner made an application in form-7 under S. 48A (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') claiming occupancy in respect of two items of land consisting of 12 guntas in S.No. 374 and 3 acres 23 guntas in S. No, 322 both situate in Marsoor village of Anekal Taluk claiming tenancy for the past 40 years. The 3rd respondent is the owner of S. No. 322 whereas one Suryanarayanaih and four others were the owners of the other Sy. No.374, the total extent of which was 2 acres 22 guntas. However, the petititioner has claimed only 12 guntas of land out of S. No, 374 and the whole of S. No. 322 measuring 3 acres 23 guntas directing his application against Adiveppa,, father of the 3rd respondent and one Chandrasekharaiah. No notices of the claim appear to have been sent either to Chandrasekhariah or any of the other persons shown as owners of S. No. 374 in the record of rights. The 3rd respondent alone entered appearance and resisted the claim. The Tribunal made the impugned order rejecting the application made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not appear before the tribunal in spite of the notice served upon him and also on the basis of a petition, said to have been sent by the petitioner dated 4-10-1979 to the tribunal expressing his desire, not to press his claim made in Form-7. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order in this writ petition.