Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R.DEVDAS
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
H.B. Munivenkatappa S/o Late Boyanna – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the State of Karnataka, through its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department raising a challenging to the order dated 27.12.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk in case No.LRF.5063/79-80.
2. By order dated 08.10.2021, respondent No.8, Residents Welfare Association Federation was permitted to be brought on record as party-respondent to the proceedings, to support the petitioner-State and its authorities.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Kiran V.Ron, appearing for the petitioner-State and its authorities submitted that old Sy.No.15 of Pattandur Agrahara village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is a tank bed. Although subsequently, it is assigned new Sy.No.54, nevertheless, the revenue records clearly show that the land in question is a tank bed and therefore, the Land Tribunal could not have re-granted the lands to Sri.H.B.Munivenkatappa (respondent No.1, since dead, is represented by his legal representatives). However, since question of delay is raised by the contesting respondents, learned AAG submitted that in the memorandum of writ petition details of
Res judicata bars re-litigation of settled ownership claims; significant delays in legal challenges can lead to dismissal of writ petitions.
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.
(1) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is a beneficent legislation for granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants of agricultural lands.(2) Order of remand cannot be passed as a matter of course ....
The court emphasized that litigants must disclose all relevant facts and cannot rely on previous orders that have attained finality to seek relief.
The Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction in granting occupancy rights without notifying interested parties, violating principles of natural justice.
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that explanations for delay in filing petitions must be supported by cogent evidence, and insufficient explanations cannot warrant condonation of d....
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....
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
