AABBCC

This Case Explanation includes important Laws, background of case, Facts of case,

questionin matter, judgment and reference cases.

First

Important Laws covered in the case are,

 Section 2(33) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

 Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

 Section 2(34) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

 Section 2(27) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

 Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

 Section 137 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

 Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974

 Rule 19(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974

Second

Background of case

 The present appeal was filed in response to the judgment of Division bench of

High Court of Karnataka which was given in response to a writ petition.

Third

Facts of the case

 Appellants are representatives of Nadakerappa, who claimed to be tenant of

the lands in question and filed two applications for occupancy rights in Land

Tribunal. The tribunal granted occupancy rights in his favor to a percentage of

Land and a certificate of registration was issued with an order of

compensation which was to be paid to Land owners.

 Mariyappa, a party to the current suit, was not made party to the application,

even though he bought a section of land in question, which led to an appeal by

him in High court against the order of tribunal. Thereby, matter was

transferred to Land Reforms Appellate Authority, which dismissed the matter.

An application was also filed before Tahsildar to rectify the revenue entry and

show his name but it was not allowed, against which an appeal before assistant

commissioner was filed, which too was dismissed.

 After Mariyappa’s death, his legal representatives filed a revision petition

before special deputy commissioner was filed and was allowed. Aggrieved,

Nadakerappa filed a writ petition in High Court which was allowed and all the

previous order of Tahsildar, assistant commissioner and special deputy

commissioner was set aside. Meanwhile, he had also filed a suit for injunction

for land in srigandadakaval village before civil court which initially granted a

temporary injunction and then gave a final decree in his favor. Landowners

challenged it in High court, but was dismissed.

 Nadakerappa filed a memo before Land tribunal in 2002 for seeking correction

of a clerical mistake and a notice was issued to the landowners. This notice

along with order of Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to him was

challenged. Single judge bench, dismissed the petition, however, another

petition was allowed and notice was quashed.

 A further appeal was filed which was allowed by the division bench and

matter was remanded to Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. Hence, present

appeal was filed.

Fourth

question in matter

 Whether the Division Bench justified in quashing of relevant orders and

remanding the matter to Land Tribunal?

 Whether Single Judge was justified in quashing the notice?

Fifth

judgment stated

 The Court held that remanding of the matter of land tribunal by division bench

is without justification as it observed that it is a settled law Appellate court has

to decide the appeal on merits rather than simply remanding the matter to the

lower tribunal.

 The Court observed that a proviso was added in the relevant Act to allow

tenants to make an application seeking correction of the extent of land and

since the legislation is a beneficent in nature to help rural tenants who are

mostly illiterate, Single Judge erred in quashing the notice and thereby, the

orders were accordingly changed.

Sixth

Reference cases used in judgment



YYZZXX