1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA

WRIT PETITION NO.14403/2018 (LR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI B. VENKATESH REDDY

S/O. LATE BHADRA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

R/AT NARAYANAGHATTA VILLAGE

MUTTANALLUR, SARJAPUR HOBLI

ANEKAL TALUK-562 106.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI T.N.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE LAND TRIBUNAL

REPTD. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

ANEKAL TALUK,

ANEKAL-562 106.

3.

SRI NANJUNDESHWARA DIETY,

REPTD. BY TAHASILDAR,

ANEKAL TALUK,

ANEKAL-562 106.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY.SRI.B.S.BUDIHAL, H.C.G.P. FOR R1 TO R3)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.07.1982 PASSED BY THE

PRESIDENT,

LAND

TRIBUNAL,

ANEKAL

IN

CASE

NO.LRF.INA.534/1980-81

ON

THE

FILE

OF

THE

LAND

TRIBUNAL, ANEKAL TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN SO FAR AS

REJECTION OF CLAIM IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.146/1 MEASURING

30

GUNTAS

SITUATED

AT

NARAYANAGHATTA

VILLAGE,

SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader to

accept notice for respondents No.1 to 3. He is

permitted to file memo of appearance in two weeks.

2.

The petitioner herein is impugning the

order dated 17.07.1982 passed by the second

respondent-Land Tribunal in case No.LRF.INA.534/80-

81 which is at Annexure-B. Admittedly, the challenge

to the said order is not in its entirety. The petitioner

is aggrieved by the impugned order only with

reference to rejection of his claim for grant of land

bearing Sy.No.146/1 measuring to an extent of 30

3

guntas situate at Narayanaghatta Village, Sarjapur

Hobli, Anekal Taluk.

3.

Admittedly, this writ petition is filed with

delay of 37 years. The order impugned would indicate

that the claim of the petitioner so far as Sy.No.146/1

measuring to an extent of 30 guntas is rejected on the

ground that the said land was not only an inam land

but, also was not under the cultivation of the

petitioner, inasmuch as there was no record to show

that he was in possession and cultivation of the same

as per the RTC pertaining to the said land. Hence, the

prayer of the petitioner is rejected by the respondent

No.2-Land Tribunal by its order dated 17.07.1982.

4.

The petitioner has accepted the said order,

got the lands which are granted in his favour mutated

to his name and has been in possession, cultivation

and enjoyment of the same. However, he has now

4

chosen to challenge the said order which was passed

37 years ago for the reasons best known to him. In

any event, the grounds urged in the instant writ

petition would not infuse confidence in the mind of

this Court to consider the writ petition for verifying the

correctness

or

otherwise

of

the

order

dated

17.07.1982 which was passed 37 years ago.

5.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of

the opinion that no grounds are made out to consider

the prayer of the petitioner herein for grant of 30

guntas of land in Sy.No.146/1.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST