Dismissed

Sri Bhojappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2021WP/44287/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate tribunal order that permitted the withdrawal of an appeal regarding occupancy rights. The court held that a petitioner registered under Form-7 could not file a Form-7A for a portion of the same land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order permitting the withdrawal of the appeal was dismissed.

Sri Bhojappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.44287/2018 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI BHOJAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶8

1A) SRI LAKSHMANA S/O LATE BHOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶9

1B) SRI MANJAPPA S/O LATE BHOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶10

1C) SRI DURGAPPA S/O LATE BHOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶11

1D) SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE BHOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶12

1E) SMT. DURGABAI, S/O LATE BHOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT ANKALGI VILLAGE TALUK AND DISTRICT BIJAPUR - 591 213.

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. VEERESH M., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 1.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BIJAPURA SUB DVN. BIJAPURA - 586 101.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR BIJAPUR TALUK, BIJAPUR - 586 101.

¶21

SMT. KALAVATHI W/O ANAND RAO NADAGOUDAR C/O A.H. NADAGOUDAR TEJASWINI BUILDING SADANAKERI DHARWAD - 580 008. … RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED 14.02.2006 IN APPEAL NO.1054/2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have challenged the order passed by

¶27

the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 14.02.2006 in Appeal No.1054/2005.

¶28

¶29

The petitioners claim that their father was a

¶30

tenant in 4 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.85 of Ankalgi village, Bijapura Taluk and on his application in Form-7, the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights. However, it is claimed that the remaining extent in Sy.No.85 was also cultivated by the father of the petitioners and therefore an application in Form-7A was filed in respect of 36 acres 11 guntas. The respondent No.2 being the competent authority to consider Form-7A rejected it in terms of the Order dated 10.11.2000 as the land was shown in the

¶31

revenue records as belonging to the Government.

¶32

The petitioners' father had filed an appeal under Section 118 (2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2.

¶33

The appeal was filed belatedly before the Tribunal after 4 years and 239 days. The appeal was heard by the Tribunal on 07.02.2006. The petitioners' father filed a memo to withdraw the appeal for reasons best known to him. The Tribunal considered the request of the petitioners'

¶34

¶35

father and permitted the appeal to be withdrawn. The petitioners have now challenged the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. It is contended by the petitioners that their father had not informed them about filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and that they were not aware of the proceedings before the Tribunal. They claimed that the appeal was withdrawn wrongly as they were in possession and enjoyment of the land.

¶36

If the father of the petitioners was already

¶37

registered as an occupant in respect of 4 acres 38 guntas, based on Form-7 filed by him, he could not file another application in Form-7A claiming occupancy rights in respect of another portion in the same survey number. It is understandably for this reason that the father of the petitioners had wisely withdrawn the appeal. The grounds urged by the petitioners to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, does not merit consideration.

¶38

¶39

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Np/-

Sri Bhojappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bhojappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Shivanna Vs Sri. Sannaputtappa

Srinivasa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sharadamma Vs Sri Hanumanthe Gowda

Sri.K.Chinnaswamy Vs Smt. Veni Nagaraj

Smt Emmy Juliana D'Souza Vs State of Karnataka

J C Badappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner