Back
ALOK ARADHE, S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Chandravathi D/o Oovamma – Appellant
Versus
N. Subban Shiva Rao S/O Late N. Shiva – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vishwajith Shetty J.
This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.33277/2012.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are, the mother of the appellant and her brother M.Nagesh namely respondent No.9 herein had filed two separate Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short "the Act, 1961") claiming occupancy rights of the lands mentioned therein. In Form No.7 filed by M.Nagesh, he had requested for granting occupancy rights in respect of land bearing survey No.108/1A while the mother of the appellant namely Smt. Oovamma had filed Form No.7 in respect of land bearing survey No.110/1, 108/1A, 110/6, 6/2C and 6/2A. Since the land bearing survey No.6/2C and 6/2A were situated in a different village, the claim in respect of said two items of land was transferred to another Tribunal while the claim in respect of other three items of the land which were situated in Kadri B Village was considered by the respondent/Tribunal and by order dated 14.10.1980,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Tribunal's power under Section 48-A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 to rectify clerical or typographical errors in its order, and th....
The court reaffirmed that corrections for clerical errors in land grants are permissible under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, ensuring all parties have the right to present their claims.
A party claiming occupancy rights must provide authentic documentation; the reliance on disputed or fabricated orders leads to dismissal of such claims.
The evidentiary value of the Civil Court's judgment, the presumptive value of revenue records, and the limited scope of interference in a revision petition under Sec. 121-A of the Act were the centra....
The court emphasized the fundamental principle of natural justice requiring notice and opportunity to be heard before a decision affecting rights is made, leading to remand of the case for fresh cons....
The court upheld the denial of occupancy rights in certain land parcels, emphasizing that mere claims without substantiated evidence do not warrant rights under the Land Reforms Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
