V.NARAYANASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The essential grievance of the petitioner regardless of ill-drafted pleadings, is against the rejection of his claim for the grant of land made under Sec. 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 which provides for grant of tenanted land in favour of the tenant continuing in possession since 1/3/1974, and after if he had not filed application in Form No.7 claiming occupancy u/s 48A.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that no Form No.7 having been filed, the application filed in Form No.7-A could not have been rejected even in respect of Devadaya Inams Land in question which aspect is wrongly treated by the Authorities and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as well. So arguing he seeks voiding of the impugned orders.

(3.) Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents and the private advocate representing the Archak of the temple in question, oppose the writ petition contending that the legal position is very clear in view of the Notification issued by the Government which aspect is rightly treated by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order, holding that Devadaya Inam Land cannot be a subject matter of grant of occupancy under Sec. 48-A of the 1961 Act, and consequently as a concomitant thereof it cannot be a subject matter of grant under Sec. 77-A as well. They rely upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in MAHADEVAMMA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS, ILR 2013 KAR 5304. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.