According to first respondent writ petitioner, the said Subbaiah executed a gift deed in respect of said Sy.
163 of 2.00 acres item No.
166 to an extent of 8.60 acres.
The R.A. No.
The Writ Petition was preferred by the first respondent after about 21 years to set aside the order dated 25.10.1975 and 10.8.1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Somwarpet, in so far as it granted occupancy rights in regard to Sy.
An affidavit filed in the earlier case, wherein the petitioner himself stated that he was number the tenant and gave up the claim regarding Sy.
This is a Special Leave Petition for setting aside the judgment dated 29.6.2004 of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, Bangalore whereby the writ appeal preferred by the appellant petitioner herein was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed.
163, 164 and In the said proceedings, the said Thyampanna Rai was represented by the petitioner his son as his power of attorney holder.
166 of Athur Nallur village measuring 8 acres 60 cents originally belonged to one Subbaiah, grand father of first respondent and 12th respondent.
166 and it was in the possession of the owner.
No.166 8A. 60 cents .
He filed O.S. No.
He took voluntary retirement in 1996.
166 and some other survey numbers in favour of his son K.S. Ganapathi.
The writ petition was allowed in part, quashing the order dated 10.8.1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Somwarpet in so far as Sy.
I am in possession of Jungle land item No.
Consequently, the Land Tribunal by order dated 25.10.1975 accepted the claim of Thyampanna Rai only with regard to the remaining five lands Sy.
The first respondent was posted as an Army Officer when all these proceedings took place.
In the meantime, the petitioners father Thyampanna Rai, claiming to be the tenant of K.S. Appachu, filed an application under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in Form No.
181 having area of 4A. 28cents alleging to be the tenant under K.S. Appachu though in the previous proceeding under Section 48A, an affidavit was filed by them that they had number claimed possession of Sy.
166 having area of 8A. 60 cents and Sy.
247/1989 filed against the petitioner, was dismissed on 4.1.1993 as being barred by Section 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
On the death of K.S. Ganapathi, his widow K. Devaki and his two sons first respondent G.Uthaya and his brother K.G. Chengappa filed a suit vide O.S. No.
This was opposed by the petitioner but the learned Single Judge being satisfied, vide order dated 5.8.2003 accepted the explanation of delay, as he was of the view that a virtual fraud had been played in securing the order dated 10.8.1977 of the Land Tribunal.
166 was number affected by order of the Land Tribunal dated 10.8.1977.
Applicants I and II K.B. Shivanna and K.B. Thimmappa have given affidavit before the Munisiff Magistrate stating that they are cultivating the land of the Respondent on companylly basis, hence their petitions may be rejected.
7 in Sy.
During the pendency of the said suit for specific performance, the petitioner filed a separate petition under Article 48A in Form 7 dated 23.12.1976 claiming occupancy rights in respect of Sy.
Accaordingly, the applications of I and II applicants are rejected.
6 and survey No, 183 of 6.98 acres item No.8 be deleted from the declaration form as I have number cultivated these lands at any point of time and further these lands have been in physical possession and enjoyment of Sri K.S. Appachu.
item Nos.
166 of 8.60 acres and I have filed the declaration in respect of this land by mistake.
171, 167, 170, 168 and 164 for grant of occupancy rights.
7/1983 which was also dismissed on 7.8.1985.
The petitioner as the power of attorney holder was examined as a witness before the Land Tribunal on behalf of his father and companyfirmed that they were number cultivating lands bearing Sy.
166 of 8.60 acres item No.5 survey No.
The suit was decreed after companytest by judgment and decree dated 16.7.1977 directing the defendants in the suit, to execute the sale deed with respect to the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs, including the petitioner herein, in terms of the sale agreement.
Order pronounced registering the name of the applicant B.T. Purushotham Rai as occupant of the land of Sy.
The suit was dismissed on 16.7.1982 on the ground that the Civil Courts had numberjurisdiction to grant relief.
1,2,3 and 4 of the schedule lands.
The decree stated thus regarding the Schedule A properties which included Sy.
I have cultivated only those lands viz.
740/1995.
17/1976 before the Civil Judge, Coorg, Mercara agaist K.S. Appachu and his son, the 12th respondent herein for specific performance of the said agreement of sale.
166 which was in possession of the owner.
Case called.
Thereafter, the first respondent was advised to file one more suit for possession.
166, 163 and 183.
110/1993 preferred by the first respondent against the said order was also dismissed on 7.3.1995 and affirmed by the Second Appellate Court vide order dated 20.9.1995 in R.S.A. No.
165 of 2.00 acres, 164 of 2.81 acres and 183 of 6.98 acres are jungle land without any cultivation and I have number cultivated these lands at any point of time and I have filed my declaration in respect of these lands also by mistake.
166 8A. 60 cents and 164 2A. 80 cents of Attur Nallar Village, Suntikoppa Talum, Somwarpet.
The numberices as required under Section 1 and 2 were published and served upon the persons interested in the suit and lands.
166, as extracted below This is an application filed under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 shortly called Act by the applicants named above claiming tenancy rights over the suit land lands.
Parties both present.
As regards the application of the third applicant B.T. Purushothama Rai , respondent admits this tenancy rights in respect of Sy.
171, 167, 170, 168 and 166 and Jungle lands bearing Sy.
The first respondent is the son of K.S. Ganapathi and the 12th respondent K.A. Kuttayya, is the son of K.S. Appachu.
Before the Division Bench, the afore stated facts were number disputed and the Division Bench being satisfied with the grounds accepted the view taken by the learned Single Judge in entertaining the writ petition after some delay.
166 was frustrated by virtue of companylusive proceedings initiated by the petitioner and K.S. Appachu before the Land Tribunal resulting in the order dated 10.8.1977.
The Special Leave Petition filed before this Court was also rejected.
84/1982 against the petitioner seeking a declaration that his right with regard to Sy.
After spending nearly two decades initiating the wrong proceedings based on wrong advice, the first respondent approached the High Court by filing a writ petition WP No.
The O.S. No.
The petitioner was the third respondent in Writ Petition No.
The first respondent challenged the said decree in R.A. No.
However, as K.S. Appachu, the other brother did number accept the validity of the said gift deed, there were negotiations between the two brothers S. Ganapathi and K.S. Appachu, and by way of a settlement, an agreement of sale was executed by K.S. Appachu in favour of K.S. Ganapathi on 12.12.1968 with regard to half portion of the wet lands Sy.
We have heard the learned companynsels for the parties and perused the record.
166 to an extent of 8.60 acres by the Tribunal Members.
I solemnly affirm that the declaration filed by me by mistake in respect of lands bearing survey Nos.
28821 of 1998 preferred by the first respondent herein.
During the companyrse of judgment, the companyrt took numbere of the fact that a tenancy claim was pending with regard to the A Schedule lands.
The said claim is against the respondent named above.
28821/1998 for quashing the order dated 10.8.1977 passed by the Land Tribunal in regard to Sy.
166, was number brought to the numberice of the Tribunal and the Land Tribunal by Order dated 10.8.1977 directed the registration of the petitioner as an occupant of Sy.
He was later informed that his decree for specific performance in respect of Sy.
166 and other lands and half that of Bane lands and the land surrounding the plaintiffs house as described in Schedule A, B and C respectively .
164 of 2.81 acres.
An affidavit dated 24.10.1975 was filed by Thyampanna Rai to the following effect I solemnly affirm that I have number cultivated the 5th item of the schedule Land described below at any point of time bearing Sy.
He explained that the delay in preferring the petition after 21 years was due to his pursuing the wrong remedies based on erroneous advice and that ultimately he was advised that he should challenge the order of the Tribunal in a writ petition instead of approaching the Civil Court.
The affidavit filed by the petitioners father and the evidence of the petitioner in the said proceeding made it clear that they were number in possession of Sy.
Further the 6th, 7th and 8th items of the schedule lands bearing Sy.
The said Subbaiah had two sons, namely, K.S. Ganapathi and K.S. Appachu.
7, praying for the grant of occupancy rights regarding eight items of land i.e. wet lands bearing Sy.
Their Statement also recorded.
