AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner herein has challenged the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 29-11-2016 in Appeal No. 672/2006. Admittedly,
the said appeal is filed by the petitioner in challenging the order of the Competent Authority and Authorized Officer, namely, Deputy
Commissioner, Mangaluru taluk, passed in No. LRT.7749/2000-01 (village Thiruvail) dated 16-09-2002, in dismissing the application filed by the
petitioner in Form No.7A of Land Reforms Act.
Facts leading to this writ petition are as under :
Petitioner herein is the grand daughter of one Mingel Fernandez. According to her, her father was a tenant under the second respondent in these
proceedings, namely Smt. K.M.Varalakshmi Mallya, with reference to land bearing Sy.No. 81/2A measuring 43 cents and Sy.No.81/2B
measuring 2 acres 59 cents of Thiruvail village, Mangaluru taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. According to her, the application in Form No.7 could
not be filed by her within the prescribed period and accordingly, after the amended provision of Land Reforms Act being included to enable
persons who have failed to file application in Form No.7, she filed application in Form 7A seeking for grant of aforesaid lands under the amended
provisions of the Land Reforms Act. In the proceedings which was held before the first respondent - Competent Authority, it is noticed that with
reference to the same survey number, earlier an application in Form No.7 was filed by the father of the petitioner as well as her uncle and although
the application in Form No.7 was rejected and thereafter this application in Form No.7A is filed by the petitioner. Accordingly petitioners
application in Form No. 7A came to be rejected by order dated 16-09-2002, which was the subject matter of appeal before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.672/2006.
The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, in the said proceedings, an application was filed by her seeking permission to produce additional
evidence which according to her was ordered by the Tribunal that the same will be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal. However, the
grievance of the petitioner is that the same is not looked into and her appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the first respondent - Competent
Authority, thereby necessitating her to file the present petition.
Heard the learned Counsel Sri. Vishwajith Rai, appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Smt.
K.Prasanna appearing for Sri. K.Chandranath Ariga for respondent No.2.
On going through the material available on record, it is seen that filing of Form No.7 by the father and uncle of the petitioner seeking grant of
occupancy right of the very same lands is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said application is rejected by the Land Tribunal of
Dakshina Kannada, which is at Annexure ''B'' to this writ petition. It is only after that, the petitioner herein claiming herself to be the daughter of
Santan Fernandez sought grant of the aforesaid lands by filing application in Form No. 7A, which is rightly rejected by the Competent Authority.
Though in the appeal, the petitioner herein sought permission to produce additional evidence, this Court is of the opinion, any additional evidence
would not strengthen the case of the petitioner in view of the earlier application in Form No.7 filed by her father which was already rejected.
Therefore, that lacuna cannot be countered by filing any additional evidence. In granting permission to adduce additional evidence, would not only
be a matter of academic interest, but legally it would not entitle her to maintain second petition for grant of very same land by filing Form No. 7A
when admittedly, earlier application in Form No. 7 filed by her father is rejected.
In the aforesaid fact circumstances, this Court finds that not granting of permission to produce additional evidence by the Appellate Tribunal is
not a serious lacuna which has rejected her right in pursuing her application filed in Form No. 7A. Therefore, question of interfering with the order
of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 672/2006, wherein the order of the Competent Authority in No. LRT.7749/2000-01 (village Thiruvail) is confirmed,
does not call for interference in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.