M Sridhar and Foster vs The Land Tribunal and Competent Authority Chikkaballapur Sub Division and Mr. Thimmaiah

Ajit J. Gunjal

The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for petitioner is that the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal died on 29.10.2009 and the impugned order was passed on 27.1.2010. Hence, the order can not be sustained in as much as it is passed against a dead person.

The learned Counsel for petitioner further submits that the material on record discloses that the petitioner was cultivating the land as a tenant as on the date when he made an application,

The petitioner herein makes an application u/s 77-A of the Act seeking grant of the land to an extent of 2 acres 14 guntas in of Chikkaballapur Taluk, Kolar District It is not in dispute that it is a Telavari Inam land. The jurisdictional Tahsildar re-granted the said kind to the appellant with a condition not to alienate for a period of 15 years.

The respondent claims to be in possession and he is having revenue records. According to him, the petitioner is neither a tenant nor having any right over the property in question. The competent authority, however granted the land in favor of petitioner which was the subject matter of an appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, having regard to the scope of Section 77-A of the Act, was of the view that there is nothing on record to show that as on the date when the application was filed or amended Act came into force, the petitioner was cultivating the land. It has also found that there was no vesting of the land u/s 44 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the respondent who was the appellant before the Tribunal died on 29.10.2009 and the impugned order is passed on 27.1.2010.

I am of the view that on that score, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be set at naught Indeed, it is to be noticed that the proceedings would abate only after lapse of 90 days under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 27.1.2010 i.e., before the expiry of 90 days. Even otherwise, the respondent was the beneficiary of an order passed by the Tribunal. Indeed, the legal heirs can certainty take advantage of the said order. The fact that the legal heirs were not brought on record does not necessarily make the order passed by the Tribunal a nullity. It is also to be noticed an order or a decree in favor of a dead person is not always a nullity.

On merits, it is to be noticed that the applicant has failed to satisfy that he was cultivating the land as a tenant as on 1.3.1974. Indeed, if the land is not tenanted as on 1.3.1974, the question of vesting u/s 44 of the Act does not arise. Having perused the impugned order, I am of the view that the question of interference does not arise. Petition stands rejected.

Mr. Shashidhar S.Karamadi, learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.