Karnataka High Court
Mrs Deepa Nani Ghatt vs The Land Tribunal on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.18445 OF 2015 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. DEEPA NANI GHATT
W/O MADHU NANDI GHATT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.86 & 87
RANKA COLONY
KAVALBYRASANDRA
SULTANPALYA
BENGALURU-560 032.
2. MR. BHASKAR NAIDU
S/O MR. G. VENKATAPATHI NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
3. MRS. C.K. CHANDRA
W/O MR. A BHASKAR NAIDU
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT NO.642, 3RD CROSS
HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032.
4. S.R. LAKSHMIPATHI
S/O RAJAGOPALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.451, 7TH CROSS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
11TH BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.M.NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU,REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. MR.M.MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA @
MURARAPPA @ MARUTHI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO.267, KODIGEHALLI
GANGAGHAVANI ROAD
SAHAKARANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 092.
3. MRS. SHANTHA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
3(i). K. SUNIL
S/O LATE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
3(ii). K.S. SUJAY
S/O LATE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
3(iii). MR. RAJAN
S/O LATE RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.3(i) TO 3(iii)
ARE R/AT NO.85
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
SEETHA VULAS EAST
ANJENEYA TEMPLE STREET
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004.
MR. RAMACHANDRA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
KUMUDA
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
MURALI
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA K.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEAR
BOTH 4(a) & 4(b) ARE
RESIDING AT NO.20,
1ST MAIN ROAD
BINNY LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 040.
MRS. AHALYA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT
TALAKADUSUBBARAO ROAD
NELAMANGALA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
MR. SHAMA RAO
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.
MS. UMA
AGED MAJOR
MS. PUSHPA
AGED MAJOR
BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.6(i)
AND 6(ii)
R/AT TALAKADU SUBBARAO
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
ROAD, NELAMANGALA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
7.
M/S. GRAVIMANS CONSTRUCTION
AND PRIVATE LIMITED
OFFICE AT NO.40
RAGHAVENDRA KRUPA,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 094
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY
MR. SANJAY KUMAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. G.KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. PARASHURAM AJJAMPUR LAKSHMAN,
ADVOCATE FOR R3(i TO iii);
SRI. M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (a & b);
SRI. B.V. SANDEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
R5 & R6 (i & ii) SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD
SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 22.07.2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 IN LRF NO.582/95-96 (ANNEXURE-J).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
1. In this writ petition the petitioners are assailing the Order
dated 24.02.2015 (Annexure-J) in LRF No.582/95-96, passed
by the respondent No.1.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the writ petition as
contended by the petitioners are, that the husband of
respondent No.3 - K.N. Ramachandra was owner of the land
bearing Sy. No.13 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Kodigehalli
Village, Bengaluru South Taluk and the subject land has been
converted for non agricultural purpose as per the order of
conversion dated 25.05.1990 (Annexure-A). It is stated in the
Writ Petition that the respondent - authority has issued
endorsement dated 25.07.1994 (Annexure-B) stating that there
is no Form No.7 filed seeking for grant of occupancy right in
respect of the land in question. It is also stated that after the
death of husband of the respondent No.3, revenue records
were transferred into the name of respondent No.3.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has sold the sites formed in
the converted land of original Sy. No.13 of Kodigehalli Village,
in favour of the petitioners, as per registered Sale Deed dated
30.05.2002 (Annexure-C) in favour of petitioner No.1,
registered sale deed dated 08.02.2002 (Annexure-D) in favour
of petitioner No.2, registered sale deed dated 08.02.2002
(Annexure-E) in favour of petitioner No.3 and sale deed dated
28.06.2002 (Annexure-F) in favour of petitioner No.4. It is
further stated in the Writ Petition that, land in question was
notified for acquisition for the benefit of M/s.N.T.I. Housing Co-
operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru, and in this regard, petition in
W.P. No.23974/1996 was filed by the above Society against
the respondent No.3 herein, challenging the order dated
05.07.1996 issued by the second respondent as per
Annexure-E, and this Court, by Order dated 13.09.1996
(Annexure-G1), dismissed the Writ Petition. Thereafter,
M/s.N.T.I. Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., filed
W.A.No.8513/1996 and this Court, by Order dated 04.03.1998,
dismissed the Writ Appeal(Annexure-G2). It is also stated by
the petitioners that, the respondent No.2 herein, contending
that he has filed application in Form-7 seeking occupancy right
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
in respect of the subject land and as such filed W.P.
No.40025/1995, seeking direction to the Land Tribunal to
consider his application in Form No.7 and accordingly, this
Court, by Order dated 23.11.1995 (Annexure-H), directed the
Land Tribunal to dispose of Form No.7 filed by the respondent
No.2. It is also stated by the petitioners that the Land Tribunal,
pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.
No.40025/1995, passed Order dated 17.09.1996, holding that
the petitioner in W.P. No.40025/1995 has not filed Form No.7
and the said Order dated 17.09.1996 was questioned before
this Court in W.P. No.32949/1996 and this Court, by Order
dated 06.12.1996 (Annexure-H1), set aside the Order dated
17.09.1996 passed by the Land Tribunal and remitted the
matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. Pursuant to
the direction issued by this Court, the Land Tribunal conducted
an enquiry and passed Order dated 28.05.2001 (Annexure-H2)
holding that the respondent No.2 herein had not filed
application in Form No.7 and again the said Order dated
28.05.2001 (Annexure-H2) passed by the Land Tribunal was
questioned before this Court in W.P. No.21659/2001. This
Court, by Order dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure-H3) remitted the
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
matter to the Land Tribunal, as this Court found that, in the
Land Tribunal records, the Form No.7 filed by respondent No.2
was packed with plastic paper. The said Order dated
14.02.2007 (Annexure-H3) in W.P. No.21659/2001 was
questioned by the petitioners herein in W.A. No.1682/2008 and
2164-65/2008 and Division Bench of this Court, by Judgment
dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure-H4), disposed of the Writ Appeals
reserving liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence
before the Land Tribunal. Pursuant to the Order passed by this
Court in W.A. No.1682/2008 and 2164-65/2008, the Land
Tribunal conducted an enquiry and granted occupancy rights in
favour of the respondent No.2 herein, as per Order dated
24.02.2015 (Annexure-J) and feeling aggrieved by the same,
the petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned order
dated 24.02.2015 at Annexure-J is non est as the said order is
contrary to the endorsement dated 09.09.2019 (Annexure-K)
and endorsement dated 12.12.2018 (Annexure-L) and
therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that, the
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
impugned order at Annexure-J passed by the Land Tribunal
requires to be set aside and as such, this writ Petition is filed.
4. I have heard Smt. S. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri. P.M. Narayanaswamy, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri. G. Krishnamurthy, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Chetan B., learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State.
5. Smt. S. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners contended that, husband of respondent No.3
was owner in possession of the land in question and the land
has been converted for forming residential sites as per
Annexure-A. It is also submitted that, after the demise of the
original owner - K.N. Ramachandra, respondent No.3 being the
wife of deceased K.N. Ramachandra, sold the sites formed in
the schedule property in favour of the petitioners. It is
contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
that the proceedings in W.P. No.23974/1996 was initiated at
the instance of M/s.N.T.I. Housing Co-operative Society Ltd.,
alleging that the land in question has been acquired for the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
benefit of the Society and same was rejected as per Annexure-
G1, which came to be confirmed in W.A. No.8513/1996 dated
04.03.1998 and as such, it is contended that, as the
respondent No.2 has not raised his grievance during the
aforementioned proceedings, cannot be declared as tenant of
the land in question and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the
Writ Petition.
6. Nextly, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has filed
W.P. No.40025/1995 stating that, he has filed Form No.7 on
05.03.1976 and same has not been considered and she further
emphasised that, though the respondent No.2 has stated that
he has filed Form No.7 during 1976, kept quiet for nearly two
decades and raised plea with regard to filing of the Form No.7
during 1995. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel
that after remand made by this Court in W.P. No.32949/1996,
the Land Tribunal considered the entire material on record held
that the respondent No.2 has not filed Form No.7, after
verifying with the contemporary records, and same would
establish the fact that, there was no Form No.7 filed by the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
respondent No.2. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the finding recorded by
the Land Tribunal at Annexure-J is non est on the ground that
so called Form No.7 said to have been considered by the Land
Tribunal at Annexure-J, appears to be inserted after two or
three decades and therefore, contended that, the said aspect of
the matter was not appreciated by the Land Tribunal while
passing the impugned order.
7. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners that, the respondent - authorities have issued
endorsements at Annexure-B dated 25.07.1984 and Annexure-
K, dated 09.09.2019, holding that there is no Form No.7 said to
have been filed by the respondent No.2 herein and there was
no discussion made by the Land Tribunal regarding the said
aspect of the matter and accordingly, sought for interference of
this Court. Finally it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners that, so called Form No.7 considered by the
Land Tribunal for granting occupancy rights was not available in
the original file itself during the earlier two proceedings held by
the Land Tribunal and therefore, no discussion has been made
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
by the Land Tribunal in the impugned order with regard to the
same and therefore, sought to quash the impugned order at
Annexure-J on the ground that there was no contemporary
records in the office of the Land Tribunal, as per the
endorsement (Annexure-P) dated 03.02.1989 which stipulates
about the non availability of alleged Form No.7 said to have
been considered by the Land Tribunal and accordingly, sought
for interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, Sri. G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the contesting respondent No.2 invited the
attention of the Court to the observation made by this Court in
W.P. No.21659/2001 (Annexure-H3) and submitted that, the
Form No.7 which was filed by respondent No.2 on 05.03.1976
was not considered by the Land Tribunal on the earlier occasion
till this Court enlightened the Land Tribunal to look into the
same and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that Land Tribunal while
passing the impugned order at Annexure-J has considered the
preliminary register at Ex.P20 which shows the name of father
of respondent No.2, was in cultivation of the land in question
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
during 1966 and further, pahani and other revenue records
indicate about the cultivation made by the father of respondent
No.2 and on his demise, the respondent No.2 was continued to
be a cultivator of this land in question and therefore, it is
contended by learned Senior Counsel that the Tribunal having
taken note of the entire material on record has rightly come to
the conclusion to issue occupancy right in favour of the
respondent No.2, whereby the ingredients for granting
occupancy right under the provisions of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 has been taken care of and as such, the
Land Tribunal rightly arrived at the conclusion which cannot be
unsettled by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that,
father of respondent No.2 had filed Form No.7 on 05.03.1976
itself and therefore, referring to the averments made in the
statement of objections and the evidence adduced by the
parties before the Land Tribunal after the remand order passed
by this Court, the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal is just
and proper and as such, sought for dismissal of the Writ
Petition. In order to buttress his arguments,
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
Sri. G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel places reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
RAM AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS reported in (2004) 7 SCC 796 and contended that,
this Court cannot upset the finding recorded by the Land
Tribunal by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has produced
the original records received from the Office of the Land
Tribunal - respondent No.1.
10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined
the rival contentions raised by the parties and perused the
original records. The core question to be answered in this Writ
Petition is in the light of the observation made by this Court in
W.P. No.21659/2001 dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure-H3) and
Order dated 06.11.2009 in W.A. No.1682/2008 and 2164-
65/2008 (Annexure-H4), whether the Form No.7 said to have
been filed by father of respondent No.2 is genuine and filed
before the Land Tribunal on 05.03.1976. In this regard, it is
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
the specific contention of the petitioners that, the land in
question was never a tenanted land and further no Form No.7
was filed by the father of the respondent No.2 and the alleged
Form No.7 said to have been filed on 05.03.1976 has been
inserted belatedly to knock off the subject land, which is a fake
Form No.7 and same ought to have been rejected by the Land
Tribunal.
11. On the other hand, the case of the contesting respondent
No.2 is that Form No.7 was filed on 05.03.1976 and the RTC
extracts stand in the name of father of the respondent No.2 for
more than four decades and they were in cultivation of the land
in question and as such, sought for confirmation of the
impugned order at Annexure-J passed by the respondent No.1.
12. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the
endorsement dated 25.07.1984 (Annexure-B) issued by the
Special Tahsildar for Land Reforms, Bangalore North Taluk, that
there was no Form No.7 filed in respect of the subject land. It is
also the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-H2
that the filing of Form No.7 by the father of the respondent
No.2 is not found in the Register. That apart, the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
respondent-authority has issued the endorsement dated
03.02.1989 (Annexure-P) stating that the competent authority
has rejected the claim about filing of Form No.7 by father of
respondent No.2. In the backdrop of these aspects, it is
relevant to extract the observation made by this Court at para
Nos.3 to 5 in W.P. No.21659/2001 dated 14.02.2007
(Annexure-H3), which reads as under:
"The Land Tribunal records have been
secured. It is now found in the Land Tribunal
records that the Form No.7 filed by the petitioner is
available and safely packed with plastic paper.
The Learned Counsel for the respondents
submits that Form No.7 in question is a concocted
document and that on earlier two occasions, it has
been categorically found that there is no Form No.7
filed by the petitioner. The endorsement is also
issued to that effect by the Tahsildar that the
petitioner has not filed any Form No.7.
Keeping in view the above submissions, the
order of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the Tribunal to find out whether the
Form No.7 in question available in the file is a
genuine one and filed within time. If the Tribunal
finds that Form No.7 in question available in the file
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
is a genuine one and filed within time. If the
Tribunal finds that Form No.7 is a genuine one
then, further enquiry to be held and the case to be
disposed of in accordance with law."
13. It is also relevant to extract the observation made by this
Court at paragraph No.13 and 14 in W.A. No.1682/2008 and
2164-65/2008 dated 06.11.2009 (Annexure-H4), which reads
as under:
"13. The aforesaid legal contentions urged by
the learned Counsel for the parties are all disputed
question of fact, which are required to be gone into
by the fact finding Land Tribunal on the basis of the
evidence that will be produced by both the parties.
In this view of the matter, it is open for both the
appellants and the 2nd respondent to adduce both
oral and documentary evidence before the Land
Tribunal to justify the respective claim and counter
claim. The original RTC records and register of
villagewari for receiving the Form No.7 application
maintained by the Land Tribunal which are
produced before us including the records of rights
must be made available to the tribunal by the
Tahsildar and get those original documents, RTC
records marked through the competent person and
the appellants and also the 2nd respondent may be
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
examined as witnesses to produce additional
evidence in support of their respective claim an
counter claim. For the above said purpose,
Tahsildar of the Taluk should keep them in safe
custody till they are required to be produced before
the Land Tribunal. Thereafter the Land Tribunal on
appreciation of facts and evidence that will be
produced on record and the evidence that would be
adduced before the Tribunal including the fact of
filing of Form No.7 is filed or not within the
prescribed time and also the endorsement sought
to be produced in these proceedings whether
certified copy of the said endorsement is issued by
the Secretary of the Land tribunal and also the
certified copy of Form No.7 issued in favour of the
uncle of the 2nd respondent also can be a subject
matter for consideration of the tribunal. It is open
for the appellants to establish their case by
adducing evidence and to cross-examine the 2nd
respondent before the tribunal. Therefore, we have
permitted the appellants to challenge the same
before the Land Tribunal. For the above said
reasons, we decline to interfere with the order of
remand to the land tribunal. However, we dispose
of these appeals, with the above liberty to the
parties and observations. However, direction is
given to the Land Tribunal to permit the parties to
adduce the evidence in this regard to establish their
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
claim and counter claim to dispose of the same in
accordance with the observations made in this
judgment.
14. With the above observations. these writ
appeals are disposed of. Parties are at liberty to
adduce additional evidence both oral and
documentary evidence before the land tribunal. It is
open for either of the parties to file such and
application seeking any such interim orders that
may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of
the case. If, such and application for interim order
is filed, the land tribunal shall consider and dispose
of the same as expeditiously as possible keeping in
view the urgency of the same that may be urged in
the application by either of the parties."
14. The Division Bench of this Court specifically directed the
Land Tribunal to record finding whether the Form No.7 said to
have been filed by the father of respondent No.2 is filed within
the prescribed time and to give a finding with regard to the
availability of Form No.7 in the original records by looking into
the contemporary records. Having taken note of the above
observation, the Land Tribunal has framed three questions for
consideration and it is made clear that, though questions/issues
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
have been framed by the Land Tribunal relating to genuineness
of the alleged Form No.7 said to have been filed by the father
of respondent No.2, it is to be noted that, as per the evidence
adduced by respondent No.2 (Annexure-Q), would indicate the
name of the father of the respondent No.2 as Munishamappa,
Urf Murarappa. However, in Form No.7 marked as Ex.P6 by the
Land Tribunal indicate the name of the father of the respondent
No.2 as Muniswamappa, Son of Ottiga. Perusal of the finding
recorded by the Land Tribunal at paragraphs 23 to 25 of the
impugned order makes it clear that, the Land Tribunal has
arrived at a conclusion that no documents have been produced
by the petitioners herein for rejecting the claim made by the
father of the respondent No.2. In the light of the observation
made above that, the Form No.7 said to have been filed by the
father of the respondent No.2 was not available in the file for
more than two occasions where the Tribunal has passed order
and in the light of the said observation made above, as there
is spurious suspicion as to how the said Form No.7 was put into
a laminated cover during 1976 and therefore, as there is
perversity in the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal
and that apart, the Land Tribunal has not applied it mind in a
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
manner known to law by following the procedure contemplated
under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, I am of the view that
the judgment referred to by learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent No.2 in RAM AND ANOTHER (supra) is not
applicable to the case on hand as there is blatant illegality in
the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal.
15. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for private
respondent contended about reflecting of the name of the
respondent No.2 in RTC extracts, however, nothing is
forthcoming in the RTC extracts for the year 1973-74. That
apart, way back in 1990 itself, the land in question has been
converted for residential purpose and the acquisition
proceedings initiated for the benefit of the N.T.I. Society at
Annexures-G1 and G2 makes it clear that, the vendor of the
petitioners herein - respondent No.3 is in possession of the land
in question. It is needless to say that, the respondent No.2
herein has filed W.P. No.40025/1995 alleging about the filing of
Form No.7, after nineteen years, and there was no explanation
offered with regard to the same by the respondent No.2 in his
evidence at Annexure-Q before the Land Tribunal. For nearly
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
nineteen years, the respondent No.2 did not make any effort to
insist for looking into the Form No.7 filed by father of the
respondent No.2. It is also to be noted that, on two earlier
occasions, the Land Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that
there was no Form No.7 filed in respect of the land in question
and same has come into light only during the proceedings in
W.P.No.21659/2001 dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure-H3) and that
apart, the said original Form No.7 was kept in a laminated
cover and whether lamination was done by father of the
respondent No.2 during 1976 or whether it was laminated by
any respondent authorities, which is suspicious in nature and
therefore, I am of the view that, whether the said application
was laminated while filing the same on 05.03.1976 is yet to be
answered by the Land Tribunal by looking into the genuineness
of the said document in terms of the order passed by this Court
in W.P. No.21659/2001 dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure-H3) and
Order dated 06.11.2009 in W.A.No.1682/2008 and 2164-
65/2008 (Annexure-H4). Undisputedly said aspect has not been
considered by the Land Tribunal in terms of the direction issued
by this Court. Hence, the reasons assigned by the Land
Tribunal in the impugned order at Annexure-J is per se illegal
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30131
WP No. 18445 of 2015
and no cogent reasons assigned by the Land Tribunal in this
regard and as such same cannot be accepted, as the same is
devoid of merits and further same requires to be re-assessed
by the Land Tribunal in the light of the observations made
above.
16. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 24.02.2015 in LRF No.582/95-96
(Annexure-J) passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside and
matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for early consideration
in the light of the observation made above.
(iii) The respondent No.1 - Land Tribunal is directed to
dispose of the petition in LRF No.582/95-96 at the earliest after
providing fair opportunity to both side parties.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac
