LAWS(KAR)-2009-8-108

LAKSHMMA W/O LATE KEMPARANGAIAH Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE TAHSILDAR AND THAMMANNAPPA S/O LATE KEMPAIAH

Decided On August 10, 2009
Lakshmma W/O Late Kemparangaiah Appellant
V/S
Deputy Commissioner, The Assistant Commissioner, The Tahsildar And Thammannappa S/O Late Kempaiah Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.4.2007 passed by the first respondent which is impugned at Annexure J.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the total extent of land in Sy. No. 15/2 of Budihal village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore rural district is an extent of 2 acres 32 guntas which was inam land. An extent of 28 guntas is said to have been registered to the name of Smt. Thimmakka under the proceedings of Inams Abolition Act. The said Thimmakka is none other than the mother -in -law of the petitioner. In addition to the said 28 guntas, the husband of the petitioner viz., Sri Kemparangaiah is said to have been in possession and cultivation of 28 guntas of land and as such the application in form No. 7 was filed before the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala. The said extent of 28 guntas is also said to have been granted by the Land Tribunal by its order dated 7.7.1981. In this regard, the petitioner claims the mutation entries in M.R. No. 136/72 -73 and 32/1931 -82 - In that context, the petitioner contends that she is entitled to the total extent of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No. 15/2.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend vehemently that in fact the petitioner and the fourth respondent are entitled to 1 acre 16 guntas each in the said survey No. 15/2 and instead, the fourth respondent has now claimed an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas under the order of the Land Tribunal and another extent of 28 guntas under the order of the Inams Abolition authority which is not sustainable. It is further contended that the very form No. 7 filed by the fourth respondent before the Land Tribunal would indicate that he had sought for occupancy right in respect of only 28 guntas and therefore the said extent only could have been granted by the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the fourth respondent can claim only 28 guntas under the order of the Land Tribunal and another 28 guntas under the order passed by the authority under the Inams Abolition Act, in all the total extent of one acre 16 guntas. II is further contended that the said position being clear, the parties had made a joint application dated 25.4.2005 before the Tahsildar and therefore, the fourth respondent cannot take any other stand at this juncture. The learned Counsel has contended that the landlord had made a statement before the Land Tribunal that the fourth respondent herein was entitled to the total extent of 1 acre 16 guntas which would mean that the same would include the said extent of 28 guntas which had been granted under the order passed by the Inams Abolition authority. It is therefore contended that the Deputy Commissioner overlooking all these aspects of the matter has wrongly come to the conclusion and therefore, the order is to be set aside.