Salimabi vs State of Karnataka and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J—Petitioner asserts that she is the widow of one Basha Sab, allegedly a tenant of land in Sy. No. 26/1 of Maralur Amanikere village, Tumkur taluk under an alleged landlady by name Gangamma, w/o Huchchaveeraiah, further asserts that one Abdul Sattar, father of respondents 3 and 4, as well as another Mohamed Ghouse were also tenants to an extent of 29 guntas each in the very same survey number. According to the petitioner, her husband is said to have filed an application in Form No. 7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for "grant" of occupancy rights over an extent of 2 acres 2 guntas. So also, it is said that Abdul Sattar had filed three applications in Form No. 7. According to the petitioner, the Land Tribunal by order dated "29/1-82", Annexure-C having considered the application of the petitioner''s husband noticed that he was in possession of 29 guntas of land in Sy. No. 26/1 and "granted" the same, while the claim of Abdul Satthar was rejected since his claim was considered on 27.4.1976 and conferred with occupancy rights over 29 guntas in Sy. No. 26/1. By order dated 27.4.1976 Annexure-D Abdul Satthar is said to have conferred with occupancy rights over 29 guntas in Sy. No. 26/1 of Maralur by the Land Tribunal, Tumkur.

It is the allegation of the petitioner that Form No. 10 Annexure-E dated 31.3.1982 in respect of 29 guntas in Sy. No. 26/1 is issued to Abdul Satthar, father of respondents 3 and 4 and not to the petitioner''s husband. On the further allegation is that Form No. 10 Annexure-E issued to the father of respondents 3 and 4 is illegal, has presented this petition on 27.10.2014 to quash Form No. 10 dated 31.3.1982 Annexure-E.

The explanation for the inordinate delay of 32 years is set out in paragraph 4 of the memorandum of writ petition which runs thus:

"4. The Petitioner was not aware of the issuing of Form No. 10 in the name of Abdul Satthar, in respect of the Land to which Occupancy Right was granted in favour of her husband. She came to know about the said fact only when she obtained the copy of RTC where in the name of Abdul Satthar was found immediately she filed an appeal before Tahsildar, Tumkur to make the chances under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act which is pending for adjudication. After filing the appeal it was advised to question the Form No. 10 before this Hon''ble Court. She being an pardhanashini lady and aged about 70 years could not take immediate steps. Delay has been caused to file this petition."

Regard being had to the inordinate delay of 32 years, the fact that petitioner''s alleged husband since deceased, during his lifetime did not question either the order of the Land Tribunal Annexure-D conferring occupancy rights over 29 guntas in Sy. No. 26/1 in favour of Abdul Satthar, father of respondents 3 and 4 nor the issue of Form No. 10 dated 31.3.1982 Annexure-E in favour of said Abdul Satthar, petitioner claiming to be the widow cannot be heard to say that she is aggrieved by Annexure-E.

The petitioner''s husband, during his lifetime, admittedly, did not assert his right to have his name recorded in the revenue records, therefore, on that score too, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the order of the Land Tribunal following which Form No. 10 Annexure-E impugned was illegal. Even otherwise petitioner''s claim to have her name recorded in the revenue records by invoking Sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for short ''KLR Act'' is said to be pending adjudication in an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner.

To a question of this Court as to what is the material to establish the bonafides of petitioner''s claim to be widow of one Basha Sab, learned counsel submits that there is no necessity to produce any documents of identity, unless it is disputed. It is needless to state that it is for the petitioner to satisfy the Court with relevant material to establish her bonafide of being a widow of deceased Basha sab, s/o Karim Sab. Having not done so, the submission of the learned counsel is unacceptable. In the light of lack of bonafides over petitioner''s identify as widow of the deceased tenant, petition must stand rejected.

Petition is presented 32 years after the order of the Land Tribunal and issue of Form No. 10 in favour of one Abdul Satthar, hence petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches deserving rejection. However, it must be noticed that in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence over total extent of land in Sy. No. 26/1 from out of which 29 guntas is said to be "granted" by the Land Tribunal in favour of petitioner''s husband, it is for the petitioner to take recourse to law and remedies as provided and not come rushing to the court invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Petition rejected.