Smt. Muniyamma vs State of Karnataka and Others

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Petitioners are before this Court questioning the rejection of occupancy rights by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, filed in Form 7A by the mother of the petitioners. It appears, initially the Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority has granted occupancy rights in favour of the mother of the petitioners to an extent of 24 guntas in Sy. No. 17/1 of Kattigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli. Against the said order, in the appeal preferred before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on the ground that there is no order of vesting, the order of the competent authority has been set aside. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court.

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

It is noticed, according to the submission of counsel representing the respondent regarding entry made in favour of the petitioner in the revenue records that is challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (mutation and change of entries), matter is pending before the Deputy Commissioner. In that view of the matter, it is his submission that before considering the grant, the dispute as to the entries made in the name of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the competent authority. That has not been done. Accordingly, it is submitted, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal though would not sustain, but ultimately the competent authority has to decide both the issues i.e., one regarding mutation entries/RTC entries in the revenue records and the other with regard to entitlement by way of grant either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the contesting respondents and whether it could be subject matter of grant or not has to be ascertained and thereafter, order has to be passed.

It is the submission of the government advocate, since there is no order or any other document made available to demonstrate that there was a vesting order, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be called in question and rightly, the Tribunal has passed the order.

It is seen there is a claim made by the petitioners'' mother as well as the contesting respondent in this regard. Ultimately, the mutation proceedings has to be concluded on priority basis and thereafter, the claim of the petitioner has to be considered with regard to grant of occupancy rights based on the application filed in Form 7A. All contentions are left open to be urged by the parties. While quashing the order of the Appellate Tribunal, matter is remitted to the competent authority for disposal of the same, according to law after hearing both the parties. However, the competent authority shall await the order of the Deputy Commissioner in revision as to the effect of the entries made i.e., any illegality or irregularity in respect of the property. With the above observation, petition is allowed.