SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Kar) 964

S. R. BANNURMATH, A. S. BOPANNA
ABOOBAKKAR – Appellant
Versus
AUTHORISED OFFICER – Respondent


S. R. BANNURMATH, J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 3-9-2002 passed in W. P. No. 25879/2002 by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of the Authorised Officer dated 28-3-2002, the presented appeal is filed.

( 2 ) THE claimant claiming to be an agriculturist applied for grant of occupancy right under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 161/ 2a measuring 10 cents of Savanoor Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina kannada District. Though the claimant claimed occupancy rights for 10 cents, the Authorised Officer has granted only 6 cents. According to him, though the appellant had filed application in Form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 38/2, 38/5 and in respect of 161/a-2, the Tribunal while granting occupancy, had inadvertently left out to include the present Survey number i. e. , 161/2a. As such, after coming into force of the provisions of Section 77-A, he approached the Authorised Officer and by the impugned order dated 28-3-2002, the same was granted to him. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no-2 herein approach














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top