Case – Sri Krishnamachari V State of Karnataka and others

STAGE – pending of admission

Date -11/06/2019

Case Summary: The petitioner had purchased a land under a registered deed dated 13/07/2005
executed by the legal heirs of its original owners B.N. Sadashiva Rao. After the purchase, the petitioner
had approached the revenue authorities and muted his name in the Revenue records. Originally the land
bearing Sy.No.28/5 belonged to B.N. Sadashiva Rao, son of B. neelakanta Sahuji and one
Chikkakunnappa, who filed an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land
Sy.No.28/5.

1992-He contended that he had been in possession and cultivating the land in dispute .The land tribunal
rejected the application for grant of occupancy rights .Being aggrieved by it he filed a Writ Petition
before the court.

2001- The court allowed the said writ petition and was pleased to quash the order and remanded the
matter to the land tribunal for fresh enquiry.

2006- In 1996, Chikkakunnappa died and his Legal heir continued the legal proceeding .The land tribunal
again rejected the application .They filed again for a Writ petition only to be dismissed .They again filed
for a Writ petition only to be dismissed again. They again filed for a Writ appeal before High court of
Karnataka and it came to be allowed the previous orders were quashed and fresh enquiry was held by
the land tribunal and pass appropriate order within 6 months.

The petitioner later submits that after the remand of the matter to the land tribunal , he is not a party
before the land tribunal and the respondents have not made him as a party and that’s why the 2nd
respondent has ordered that the land to be confirmed with the legal heirs. He also submits that the 2nd
respondent has passed a common order .The petitioner being the aggrieved party is preferring the writ
petition, since he has no other alternative option in law except to approach the High court.

The order which was passed by the 2nd respondent was illegal and contrary to law because the
petitioner was not made a party and the respondents no 3 to 14 have intentionally not made petitioner
as a party although petitioner was a respondent in the writ petition cases filed in 2006.The respondents
had full knowledge that the petitioner is the owner and interested party .they didn’t give the
opportunity also so the impugned order is to be set aside.

It was also seen that the 2nd respondent had not followed the due procedure and rules made under
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is submitted that the whole action and proceedings initiated by 2nd
respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice., as no notice is issued by the respondent no 2
to the petitioner and it’s a unilateral action of the by 2nd respondent in confirming the occupancy rights
in respect of portion of land in favor of respondent 3 to 14 which is retained by the petitioner and hence
it is liable.