Skip to content


Sanna Basappa Shankarappa Ballagodu Vs. Basappa Sathyappa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. Nos. 3432 and 3433 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1978Kant212; 1978(1)KarLJ478
ActsKarnataka Land Reforms Act, 1962 - Sections 48A; Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 - Rule 17
AppellantSanna Basappa Shankarappa Ballagodu
RespondentBasappa Sathyappa and ors.
Appellant AdvocateU.L. Narayana Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJ.M. Riazuddin and ;K.S. Desai, Advs.
Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 216: [r.b.naik,j] alteration of charge - held, charge could be altered at any time before judgment. -- section 244 & chapter xix (b):examination of party prosecuting case and witnesses before framing charge in cases instituted otherwise than on police report - held, the provisions as contained in section 244 mandates that a magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. as such, the discretion is vested with the complainant to produce the evidence in support of his case. it cannot be said that even if the averments made in the complaint alone disclose sufficient grounds to frame charge, the magistrate is precluded from framing such charge, which the.....order1. these two writ petitions are presented by the same person against two orders of the land tribunal, badami, taluk dated 23-11-1975 produced as exs, 'a' and 'b' along with the writ petition. by the said orders the land tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent in each of these writ petitions in respect of 6 acres of land in s. no. 36 and 5 acres in s. no, 81 of pattadakal village.2. sri u. l. narayana rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tribunal had held no enquiry as contemplated under section 48a of the karnataka land reforms act read with rule 17 of the karnataka land reforms rules. he pointed out that the land tribunal has filled up the particulars furnished by the applicant in his form no. 7 on printed forms and that.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. These two writ petitions are presented by the same person against two orders of the Land Tribunal, Badami, Taluk dated 23-11-1975 produced as Exs, 'A' and 'B' along with the writ petition. By the said orders the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent in each of these writ petitions in respect of 6 acres of land in S. No. 36 and 5 acres in S. No, 81 of Pattadakal village.

2. Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal had held no enquiry as contemplated under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act read with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. He pointed out that the Land Tribunal has filled up the particulars furnished by the applicant in his Form No. 7 on printed forms and that constitutes the order of the Land Tribunal.

3. I have gone through the certified copies of Exs. 'A' and 'B'. The submission made by Sri U. L. Narayana Rao is fully justified. Except the filling up of the Survey numbers, their extent, village in which the lands are situated and the name of the parties, in the printed form the rest of the order is stereotyped and printed. It is surprising that the Tribunal has got printed 'Ready-made orders' for its use and has passed the impugned orders by filling up those forms mechanically, without enquiry, without applying its mind in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of the Land Reforms Act.

4. It is unfortunate that the Land Tribunal which is invested with statutory power to decide the valuable rights of the parties should have passed orders in a callous manner without applying its mind and without holding an enquiry which cannot inspire confidence in the parties seeking justice from the Tribunal. In the circumstances, it is necessary to observe that the Tribunal should bear in mind the provisions of Section 48A of the Act and Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, which make it obligatory for the Tribunal to hold enquiry and give its finding after considering the evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective claims.

5. For the reasons stated above, the rule is made absolute. The impugned orders of the Land Tribunal, Badami Taluk dated 23-11-1975 (Exs. 'A' and 'B') are quashed. The cases are remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. No costs.

Rule made absolute.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //