AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gurjal
The petitioner is questioning the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order passed by the competent authority granting the land in favour of the petitioner herein.
Matter arises in the following order:
The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the land in question but however, could not make an application in Form No. 7. Hence, he files an application in Form No.7. A u/s 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, The competent authority grants the said application and the same is set aside by the Tribunal.
It is not in dispute that several civil proceedings were initiated before the Civil Court between the parties. O.S.No.89/92 was filed by the respondents for redemption of the mortgage. The suit has been decreed and execution proceedings are already initiated. The petitioner files a suit in O.S.No.97/95 for enforcement of an agreement to sell. Obviously, if these proceedings are to be taken note of, the question of petitioner cultivating the land as a tenant as on the appointed date does not arise and also the land does not vest in the Government If the land does not vest with the Government, the question of invoking the provisions of Section 77-A, in the circumstances does not arise. The order passed by the Tribunal certainly cannot be faulted in as much as the petitioner was never cultivating the land as a tenant having regard to the findings recorded in the civil proceedings. The only contention of the petitioner is that he shall be dis-possessed with due process of law. Apparently, the respondents have initiated execution proceedings seeking possession. Respondents shall pursue the said proceedings.
With these observations, petition stands rejected.
Mr. Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learend HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.