Back
2005 Supreme(Kar) 163
Karnataka High Court
SUNDARA MESTA BIN TIMMAPPA MESTA - Appellant
Versus
LAND TRIBUNAL, KUNDAPUR - Respondent
Decided On : 03-03-05
Writ Petition : 11998 of 1993
DAYANAND K.G., RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH, S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, SAMPATH ANAND SHETTY, UMESH A.TRIVEDI
Headnote:Necessary Particulars in an application under - KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 38 - Necessary Particulars in an application under - Applicant mentioned the name and address of owner of land - Should he include names of interested persons also? Not necessary - When public notice is issued, if any person is interested, should have come forward - Application cannot be dismissed on the ground.
[S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: Rule 9-A(l) of the KLR Rules provides the form of application under sub-section(l) of Section 38 to be in Form of 2-A. The said form contains different columns to be filled in by the applicant giving the description of the land, and the name of owners of the land. A perusal of the materials on record shows that the petitioner has given the particulars of Owner-Respondent No.3 in his Form 2-A. Thus, the petitioner has complied with the statutory requirements. The Land Tribunal in the course of the Order at Annexure-A has observed that public notice was issued according to law. The 4th respondent has not appeared before the Land Tribunal in response to the public notice. It was open for the 4th respondent to appear before the Land Tribunal and contest the matter. The 4th respondent not being the owner of the land need not be included in Form No. 2A. The application of the petitioner filed under Section 38 of the Act cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-inclusion of the name of 4th respondent in Form No.2A.
Cases Referred: Followed:1979(2) KLJ 370; ILR 1979 KAR 1681; ILR 1996 KAR 3646. 817
Appointment by promotion
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 16 - Appointment by promotion - 10% in clerical posts reserved to be appointed by promotion of Messenger-cum-sweepers on seniority-cum-merit basis - Bank prescribed minimum marks in written and viva-voce tests - Whether opposed to law - Whether arbitrary and violative of the Article.
[N. K. Patil, J]: After careful perusal of the grounds urged by the petitioners and the stand taken -by respondents in their statement of objections, and after careful perusal of the impugned circular dated 3rd November, 2000, it is manifest on the face of the said circular that, the respondents have not committed any error of law much less irregularity. As a matter of fact, the said circular dated 3rd November, 2000 has been issued in concurrence with the notification dated 29th July, 1988 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi and in view of that, there i, promotional opportunity to the cadre of Messenger-cum-Sweeper to an extent of 10% of the total available vacancies, and eligibility for direct recruits namely the qualifications, etc., are mentioned at 4(A); and eligibility for promotees and their required qualification has been indicated at 4(B) at page 32 of the said notification. Therefore, there is no error or illegality as such committed by respondents.
Cases Referred: Followed:AIR 1998 SC 2565: (1998)6 SCC 720: 1998 SCC (L and S) 1656; 2001(3) Kar.L.J 321: ILR 2000 Kar 1841
Procedure to be followed - KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 - Section 48-A - Procedure to be followed - Occupancy rights granted - Subsequently another applicant claiming ownership under Section 38 over a part of the land to which occupancy rights were granted - Tribunal should set aside its earlier order if necessary and consider both the applications together.
[S. Abdul Nazeer, J]: The 4th respondent was granted occupancy right to an extent of 14 cents by the order dated 21- 7 -1978 which includes 5 cents of the land granted to the petitioner subsequently. In Basappa s case (1979 (2) Kar. L. J. 370) and in Krishna Shetty s case (ILR 1979 Kar 1681) the Division Benches have held that, even if one of the rival applicants had filed his application earlier and the Tribunal had granted him occupancy right in respect of the land and subsequently another applicant makes an application within the time limit provided by Section 48-A in respect of the same land, the Tribunal is bound to consider the later application by setting aside its earlier order and consider both the rival applications.
( 2 ) I have heard Sri Umesh A. , learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri dayanand KG. , learned Counsel for respondent 4 and learned High court Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. Though notice was served on the 3rd respondent-owner of the land, it has remained unrepresented.
( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while considering the application of the petitioner filed under Section 38 of the k. L. R. Act, the Land Tribunal ought to have recalled its earlier order granting occupancy rights of the same land in favour of the 4th respondent. He further submits that the petitioner has made the owner of the land, the 3rd respondent, as a party to the proceedings. Public notice as required under Section 48-A (2) of the K. L. R. Act was issued by the Land Tribunal. The 4th respondent has not appeared before the land Tribunal in response to the public notice. He farther submits that the 4th respondent was not a tenant of the land in question and that grant of occupancy right of the entire extent of 14 cents in Sy. No. 213/4 is illegal as the ownership of the said land has been granted in favour of different agricultural labourers in accordance with Section 38 of the k. L. R. Act. Learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in basappa Gurusangappa v Land Tribunal, Badami and Others, Krishna shetty and Others v Land Tribunal, Somwarpet and Others and mahaucer Chambanna Kallimani and Others v State of Karnataka and others, in support of his contentions.
( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri Dayanand KG. , learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that there is a long delay in approaching this Court. The petitioner has not assigned satisfactory reasons for the delay. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Secondly, he submits that, the order made by the Land tribunal in favour of the 4th respondent has attained finality and that the said order cannot be recalled at this stage. It is his further submission that the occupancy right was granted in favour of the 4th respondent as per Section 48-A of the K. L. R. Act at an earlier point of time. The order made in favour of the petitioner was to register him as the owner of the land as per Section 38 of the K. L. R. Act on a subsequent date. The scope and purport of both the sections are totally different. Therefore, the applications made by the petitioner and the respondent 4 under different provisions for different purposes cannot be clubbed. He further submits that the petitioner has not made the 4th respondent a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Therefore, the order made in favour of the petitioner is not binding on the 4th respondent.
( 5 ) IN the light of the rival contentions of the learned Counsels for the parties, the following points arise for consideration
