AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluyadi. G. Ramesh
Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for R-1. Petitioner is assailing the order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore at Annexure ''A'' dated 14.5.2008 in Appeal NO. 1098/2005, on the ground that no notice has been served on her and that she has not been heard in the matter before passing the impugned order and the properties which were claimed in Form No. 7A were left out in the earlier Form No. 7 filed by her.
It is seen that the earlier Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner had been rejected by the Land Tribunal, as against which, the writ petition filed before this Court has also been dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner has filed application in Form No. 7A u/s 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which has been considered by the 1st respondent graining occupancy rights in her favour.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
According to the petitioner''s counsel, since some of the properties were left out while filing Form No. 7 earlier, petitioner has exercised her right after the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in the year 1998, as such, it is maintainable. Accordingly, he has sought for allowing the petition. The object of introducing the amendment in furtherance of the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act is, before the cut off date if the tenant had not filed any Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights and he is cultivating the land and continues to be the tenant in occupation and possession even after the cut off date i.e., on 30.6.1979 and if the disputed land vested with the Government, one more opportunity was given to file Form No. 7A by virtue of the amendment in the year 1998. Apart from that, the tenant should not have made any claim earlier as per the provisions of Section 77 of the Act. If, in the claim made earlier, he has left out some of the properties, subsequently he is not entitled to claim those properties under Form No 7A u/s 77A of the Act and the same is impermissible. Though the competent authority has granted occupancy rights in respect of the properties which were left out without visualising the rejection of Form No. 7 filed earlier, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly reversed the finding of the competent authority. Though petitioner has not availed the opportunity to argue the matter before the Tribunal, the impugned order passed docs not suffer from any illegality.
Hence, petition is dismissed.