AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Justice H. Billappa, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned High Court Government Pleader. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 05.08.2005, passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, in LRF No.92/1978-79 vide Annexure-V.
By impugned order, the Land Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the second respondent claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.3/1 of Tirumenahalli Village.
The petitioners claim that they are the children of second respondent who had claimed occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.3/1 of Tirumenahalli village, measuring 1 acre and 35 guntas. The application has been rejected on the ground that the second respondent requested to reject the application. Therefore, this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the second respondent had filed application on behalf of the family and therefore, the impugned order cannot, be sustained in law. He also submitted that there are tombs in the land and without holding any enquiry the impugned order has been passed and therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned Government Pleader submitted that there is delay in filing the writ petition and the impugned order has been passed based on the statement of the second respondent and therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader.
The point that arises for my consideration is; Whether the impugned order calls for interference? It is relevant to note, the second respondent claimed occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.3/1 of Tirumenahalli village measuring 1 acre and 35 guntas. Thereafter, the second respondent has requested to reject the application on the ground that he is not the tenant and the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the land. Therefore, the Land Tribunal has rejected application. I do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.