High Courts

Syed Kalimulla and Another vs Muniswamy and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 4 April 1979 · Citation: (1979) 2 KarLJ 199

HON’BLE JUDGES
Swami, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 — Section 48A(2)
CASE NUMBER
WP. No. 11250/78
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 343 words
1.

In this writ petition under Art. 226(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Mulbagal, in Case No. LRF. 579/74-75 dated 22-6-1976, granting occupancy right in favour of the first respondent.

2.

Shri K.S. Srinivasa Iyer, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before me that the petitioners being the co-sharers in the land bearing Sy. No. 90/3 measuring 32 guntas of Sounavadi village, Mulbagal Taluk, were entitled for individual notices and no notices were issued to them nor the 1st respondent impleaded the petitioners as parties to the application filed in Form No. 7.

3.

It is not in dispute that the second respondent and the petitioners are the brothers being the sons of one Abdul Khalak, who was the owner of the land in question. That being so, on the death of Abdul Khalak, the land in question devolved upon the petitioners and the second respondent. Abdul Khalak died long prior to the commencement of the proceedings. Thus, it is clear that the first respondent ought to have impleaded the petitioners as parties to the application filed in No. 7, Further the Tribunal also has not issued the notice to the petitioners, though the petitioners were entitled for individual notice in view of S. 48A(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. In view of the fact that neither the first respondent impleaded the petitioners in the application filed in Form No. 7 nor the Tribunal issued notices to them, the order passed by the Tribunal granting occupancy right in favour of the first respondent, cannot at all be sustained. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and the order passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and the case now stands remitted to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the case afresh after holding an enquiry in accordance with law and after issuing notices to the petitioners and after affording an opportunity to the parties including the petitioners to adduce evidence and after hearing them.

No costs.