WRIT PETITION 68990 of 2010 on 7 May 2002

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2002, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-E and the order dated 29.12.2006, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short KAT), produced as per Annexure-F.

2. Heard Sri.Prasad Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri.Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8, Sri.Santosh B Rawoot, learned counsel for the respondent No.9. Perused the materials and record.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are the legal representatives of the original tenant-Payanna Yellappa Masekar and they did not file Form No.7 due to oversight. However, subsequently the land was vested in the Government and they filed the application under Section 77

(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short the ‘ KLR Act’) for grant of land. The said application was rejected by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, produced as per order Annexure-E, which was later confirmed by the KAT as per Annexure-F.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 7 and 8 has drawn my attention to the order of the Assistant Commissioner, especially to the names at Serial No.1 that is the petitioner, and at Serial No.4, both of whom are claiming to be the legal representatives of the original tenant- Payanna Yellappa Masekar. Application under Section 77(A) of the KLR Act filed by both the applicants came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal.

5. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that on rejection of such applications by the Assistant Commissioner, and also by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Balakrishna Payanna Masekar and others filed Writ Petition No.3850 of 2007 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It recorded a categorical finding that the applicants were not tenants.

But, they claimed to be the grandchildren of the original tenant that is, Payanna Yellappa Masekar.

6. My attention was also drawn to the order sheet dated 07.01.2025, wherein learned counsel for the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2024, seeking appointment of Tahsildar, or a Revenue Inspector, or a Village Accountant, as Court Commissioner to ascertain the disputed question regarding the original name of the father of the deceased-petitioner. This Court has opined that I.A.No.1 of 2024 lacks merits. However, liberty was reserved with the petitioner to produce such documents to establish the name of the father of the petitioner. Till date, no such documents are produced before the Court.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos. 7 and 8 that the original tenant Payanna Yellappa Masekar died issueless. During his lifetime, his name was entered in the record of rights. However, after the death of the original tenant, land was restored in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6, who are the original owners, who in turn sold the disputed property in favour of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 under the registered sale deeds dated 16.07.2002 and 12.07.2002 respectively. When there is no scrap of paper to show that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant-Payanna Yellappa Masekar, and when a categorical finding was recorded by the Assistant Commissioner that the petitioners were not cultivating the land at any point of time, I am of opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for any claim. Admittedly, the names of the petitioners were never entered in the record of rights at any point of time. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE

VB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6