IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2001

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.GOPALA GOWDA

WRIT PETITION No.26909-24/2001(KLR)

BETWEEN

1

2

3

4

SIDDARAMAIAH AGED 60 YEARS S/O.GOWDAIAH R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

MADAIAH AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KALALINGEGOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

CHIKKONU AGED 65 YEARS S/O.AKKI NINGEGOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

MOTTIAH AGED 60 YEARS S/O.AKKI NINGEGOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

• 1 -

SHIVALINGAMMA AGED 27 YEARS W/O.LATE C K NAGARAJU R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

2

MARIYAIAH AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KALEGOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

CHIKKAMMA AGED 35 YEARS W/O.MARASHIVAIAH R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

DODDAVANU AGED 67 YEARS S/O.AKKI NINGEGOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

CHIKKAIAH AGED 48 YEARS S/O.MANCHEGOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

10

THAMMAIAH AGED 45 YEARS S/O.RAME GOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

5

6

7

8

9

MADAIAH AGED 35 YEARS S/O.KALE GOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

3 -

12

13

11

PUTTASWAMY AGED 36 YEARS S/O.NINGE GOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

NINGARAJU AGED 33 YEARS S/O.NAGE GOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

14

MADAIAH AGED 55 YEARS S/O.KALLEGOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

15

CHIKKA KALAIAH AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KARIGOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST.

16

K LINGAIAH AGED 58 YEARS S/O.KARIGOWDA R/OF.KALAKEMPANADODDI VILLAGE APPUGOWDANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TQ MANDYA DIST. ... PETITIONER(S)

(By Sri N.J.BALIGA )

mal -

1 BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O.GADDEGOWDA C.A.KERE VILLAGE MADDUR TQ, MANDYA DIST.

• 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DIST., MANDYA
• 3 THE ASST COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB DIVISION ...RESPONDENTS

- 0 0 0 -

-4 -

These W.Ps. are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-C dated 30-11-2000 passed by the KAT and restore the order passed by R2 as per Annexure-B dated 15-6-1998 and Annexure-A dated 25-2-1997 by R3 and thereby direct the authorities to regularise the unauthorised occupation of the petitioners in Sy.No.135 of Menasugeri Village, Chelakarana Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District.

These W.Ps. coming on for Prl.Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners who are aggrieved of the order passed by the KAT, have filed these Writ Petitions questioning its legality and validity urging various legal contentions.

2. The various facts and legal contentions urged are referred to in the order of the Deputy Commissioner as well as KAT. Therefore, this Court need not refer to the same in this order. The third respondent, on the review application filed

huv

AND

by the petitioners who are not parties to the proceedings after lapse of nearly 24 years the order dated 26-8-1971 passed in Case LND.49/71-72 in exercise of his power under Section 25 of the Act, has reviewed the order by passing the order dated 25-2-1997 giving direction to the Tahsildar of Maddur Taluk to consider the application filed in Form No.50 under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (in short KLR Act) for grant of lands in favour of petitioners. The said order was questioned by the first respondent herein before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 15-6-98. That order was challenged by the first respondent in Appeal No.414/1998 and other persons also filed appeal before the KAT. The KAT with reference to the rival contentions of the parties has framed the points at paragraph of the impugned order and answered the same by assigning valid and cogent reasons at paragraphs 6 to 12, which order is challenged in these petitions.

3. The KAT with reference to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties has referred to the order of grant made in favour of first respondent and others on establishing

NN

-5

their claim for regularisation in their possession independently and recorded a fingind of fact holding that the second respondent without appreciating the facts on record on the basis of incorrect submissions made by the petitioners counsel has cancelled the grant order made in favour of third respondent and others. The second respondent has unilaterally inspected the spot and drew conclusions on basis of the said spot inspection made by him. Further KAT has also taken into consideration its earlier order dated 10-12-1986 passed in R.A.No.301/1983 in cancelling the land grant made in favour of first respondent and others who are the appellants before the KAT and after dismissal of the said appeals review petition was filed on 22-1-1991 contending that the Judgment dt.22-1-1991 was 'vitiated by an error apparent on the fact of the record'. Subsequently, 22-1-1991 it has permitted the Appellants and on respondents in that Appeal to file an application to withdraw the appeal and the same was permitted to be withdrawn and therefore the KAT has held that the third respondent was not correct in coming to the conclusions that the Appeal filed by the first respondent was dismissed.

MAN -

-6 -

Further it has held that, grant made in 4 . favour of the first respondent and others was ordered to be cancelled is factually incorrect. The KAT has held that petitioner's had no right to file review petition to review the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner in the year 1971. Further, as could be seen from Annexure-A, there was no application filed by the petitioners seeking for condonation of delay in filing the belated review petitions before him. The above said important and relevant questions have not been considered by the second and third respondents while passing the I have examined the said orders by them. contentions urged on behalf of first respondent before the KAT it has rightly recorded a finding holding that third respondent had no jurisdiction to review his orders in the review petition filed by the petitioners.

-7 -

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to put-forth his case by relying on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1987 KAR 2589 in the case of THIMMAIAH vs. KARIYAPPA and other judgments. The cases relied upon by the petitioners counsel have no application to the facts of this case as they are mis-placed as the

fact situation of this case and those cases are entirely different and distinguishable. Hence the reliance placed upon the judgments referred to supra do not render any assistance to the facts of these petitions.

-8 -

6. The appellate authority-second respondent herein, against the order passed at Annexure-A by the third respondent at the instance of the first respondent and others, should have entertained the appeal and allowed the same. Instead of that, he has wrongly dismissed the appeal without examining the validity of the order passed in the review petition. Therefore, the order passed by third respondent is without authority of law and hence, no relief can be granted by this Court in these petitions.

7. Hence, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.

Bd/-JUDGE

Sk-Bpy