Sri. Venkatrarumanappa vs Land Tribunal and Others Dattatreya Swami Seva Trust(R) Vs Sri. Venkataramanappa, Sri. M. Thimmaiah, Papanna and Others

Huluvadi G. Ramesh

Petitioner in W.P. No. 11361/2012 has sought for quashing the impugned order at Annexure-N dated 07.03.2011 and to grant occupancy

rights to the remaining extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy. No. 138 of Anekal. In W.P. No. 3543/2012, the petitioner trust being aggrieved by the

order of grant of properties in Sy. No. 138 in favour of the contesting respondents is before this court.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader and the counsel representing the other respondents in both the

petitions.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner has claimed occupancy rights in respect of 2 acres and 6 guntas, after

considering all the aspects of the matter, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 1 acre and 16

guntas only and observed remaining 30 guntas is in possession of the Temple/Trust i.e., the petitioner in former case. Being aggrieved by this, this

petition is filed for grant of remaining extent of 30 guntas in favour of the petitioner. In the other case, the petitioner being a trust, the Land Tribunal

without looking into the contentions of the trust, granted occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that first

respondent filed Form No. 1 before the fourth respondent for registration of occupancy rights under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka

Certain Inams Abolitions Act, 1997 and the fourth respondent having no jurisdiction, transferred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, the

competent authority. On enquiry having ascertained that the said temple is a private temple the land in question is not an inam land and the

application filed by the first respondent under the above said Act for grant of occupancy rights was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. Taking

into consideration the stand of the first respondent that he has filed Form No. 7A, before the Tribunal to consider this aspect, the matter was

remitted to the Land Tribunal The Land tribunal instead of verifying whether the Form No. 7 or 7A claiming occupancy rights is filed or not, has

mechanically proceeded to pass the order.

It appears the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal, Anekal needs reconsideration of the contention of the parties. i.e., the trust as well

as the petitioner in the former case and also regarding the maintainability of the petition before the Land Tribunal since Form No. 7 could be

entertained by the Land Tribunal is the question to be looked into. Earlier this court has passed an order regarding maintainability In W.P. No.

1478/2011. In that view of the matter, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. All the contentions of the parties are kepi

open. It is for the Land Tribunal to consider the case of the petitioners only in the background of the contentions raised by them and also the fact

that application filed by the petitioner Trust in O.S. No. 215/2010 is still pending consideration shall also be taken into consideration by the

Tribunal.