Dhobi Ramaiah Vs. Dhobi Abbiga and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of guilt by the driver become the sole criterion for allowing the claim petition by the m.a.c.t. a case of insurance company disputing the very factum of accident sustainability of the award passed by the m.a.c.t. - held, the m.a.c.t. should not and ought not to place sole reliance on the judgment of the criminal court while considering the issue of the factum of the accident and the consequent negligence, as stated in the claim petition filed before the tribunal. but, the tribunal will have to assess the evidence before it independently of any finding of the criminal court on the question of the driver pleading guilty. at the most, the circumstance of the driver pleading guilty may be considered as one of the pieces of evidence to support the case of the claimant. but, the tribunal should not place implicit reliance only on the circumstance of the driver having pleaded guilty before the criminal court and such an approach by the tribunal will be not only an one sided approach but, at the same time, there is every likelihood of the pleading of guilt by a driver before the criminal court having been obtained by adopting various methods so as to ensure that the claimant..........the impugned order.6. the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was no public notice as contemplated under section 48(2) of karnataka land reforms act, the petitioner had no notice and therefore the impugned order is bad in law. per contra, mr. gangi reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent has relied upon the decision of this court reported in basappa v land tribunal, bagalkot taluk and others and bakilana chinnappa v land tribunal, mercara taluk and others, for the proposition that if a party has not filed application, question of issuing notice to such party does not arise and he has no right to challenge the order unless it is shown that he has got interest in the land, appeared before the land tribunal and opposed the claim. the ratio of the said decisions applies to this case in all fours.7. the question as to whether the application filed by the first respondent claiming occupancy rights was as a joint family status, is a matter to be decided by a civil court in a properly instituted suit and the same cannot be gone into in the proceedings under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, especially in the light of.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 9-12-1988 passed by the 3rd respondent-Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent for 2 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy. No. 25/3 of Shamashetti Hally in Malur Taluk.

2. According to the petitioner, the land in question is an Inam Land and the tenancy is joint family tenancy. In respect of the application filed by the first respondent seeking occupancy rights, the petitioner andthe 2nd respondent have got interest as coparceners. The grievance of the petitioner is that by making a false submission before the Land Tribunal that the first respondent was the only son of Late Mu-niswamappa, the original tenant of the land in question, he obtained the occupancy rights in his favour.

3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter denying the petition averments. According to him, there was a family partition in the year 1985 itself and in that all the family properties had been partitioned. It is stated that since the property in question fell to his share, he filed Form No. 7 and obtained the occupancy rights in his favour. Copies of the partition deeds have been produced as Annexures-R1 and R2.

4. Admittedly the petitioner was not the applicant before the Land Tribunal. The first respondent filed the application in his individual capacity and obtained occupancy rights in his favour. Admittedly the owner of the land has not challenged the impugned order. The claim of the petitioner that he belongs to joint family and he is also entitled to a share in the land for which occupancy rights have been granted in favour of the first respondent is believed by Annexure-R1 and R2 produced by the first respondent. After the partition the status of joint family does not exist. Such being the position, the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to joint family is misconceived.

5. The petitioner being neither an applicant nor landlord of the land in question, has no locus standi to seek quashing of the impugned order.

6. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since there was no public notice as contemplated under Section 48(2) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the petitioner had no notice and therefore the impugned order is bad in law. Per contra, Mr. Gangi Reddy, learned Counsel for the first respondent has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Basappa v Land Tribunal, Bagalkot Taluk and Others and Bakilana Chinnappa v Land Tribunal, Mercara Taluk and Others, for the proposition that if a party has not filed application, question of issuing notice to such party does not arise and he has no right to challenge the order unless it is shown that he has got interest in the land, appeared before the Land Tribunal and opposed the claim. The ratio of the said decisions applies to this case in all fours.

7. The question as to whether the application filed by the first respondent claiming occupancy rights was as a joint family status, is a matter to be decided by a Civil Court in a properly instituted suit and the same cannot be gone into in the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, especially in the light of Annexures-R1 and R2, which have not been disputed by the petitioner. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.

8. The ground urged by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the Tribunal ought to have enquired about the legal heirs of late Muniswamappa, is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers exercisable by the Tribunal while considering the claim for grant of occupancy rights. It was for the legal heirs of late Muniswamappa, who claim coparcenary right in the land, to got themselves impleaded and established their claim. The Tribunal is not duty bound to venture upon the legal representatives of a deceased person. Parties have to put forth their claim and establish the same. The ground urged is totally misconceived and is opposed to all cannons of law.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.