Doddegowda Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-division and anr.

Doddegowda vs The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-division and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Apr 05, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/901845

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/901845
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.
Decided On: Apr 05, 2010
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5182 of 2008
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Doddegowda

Advocate Dilip Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-division and anr.

Advocate Ramachandra Naik, High Court Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Reported In: 2010(3)KarLJ78

Excerpt

- .....petitioner himself continued the cultivation and possession of the property as a tenant. thereafter, he purchased the said land during the year 1974 from the 2nd respondent, the then maharaja of mysore. he filed form 7-a claiming occupancy rights, but the same was rejected by the appellate tribunal as well as by the competent authority on the ground that as on 1-3-1974 the lands were not noted as tenanted lands and even in column 12(2) in rtc the name of the petitioner was not shown and also nothing has been mentioned as to payment of rent/gutta to the landlord etc., and also no prima facie material is produced.5. annexure-a has been produced by the petitioner to show that, the then maharaja of mysore has issued a letter to the effect that the land has been sold in favour of the petitioner and the same could not be registered in his favour since the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 came into effect from 1973-74. if the petitioner is in continuous possession of the land in question openly and uninterruptedly as per the statutory requirement and on verification, if it is found that letter issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent at annexure-a is genuine, the petitioner could very well seek for declaration before the civil court.6. with the above observations, petition is disposed of.learned government pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.

1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent 1. Notice to respondent 2 is dispensed with.

2. Petitioner is challenging the order of the Competent Authority/Assistant Commissioner, Mysore dated 19-7-2006 and also the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, dated 21-8-2007 in confirming the said order as per Annexures-C and D respectively, in rejecting the Form 7-A filed by the petitioner in respect of the property in Sy. No. 43/3 measuring 3 acres and 22 guntas situated at Yelwal Kaval Village.

3. Heard.

4. According to the petitioner, petitioner's grandfather was cultivating the land in question under the 2nd respondent and after his death, petitioner's father and later petitioner himself continued the cultivation and possession of the property as a tenant. Thereafter, he purchased the said land during the year 1974 from the 2nd respondent, the then Maharaja of Mysore. He filed Form 7-A claiming occupancy rights, but the same was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal as well as by the Competent Authority on the ground that as on 1-3-1974 the lands were not noted as tenanted lands and even in column 12(2) in RTC the name of the petitioner was not shown and also nothing has been mentioned as to payment of rent/gutta to the landlord etc., and also no prima facie material is produced.

5. Annexure-A has been produced by the petitioner to show that, the then Maharaja of Mysore has issued a letter to the effect that the land has been sold in favour of the petitioner and the same could not be registered in his favour since the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 came into effect from 1973-74. If the petitioner is in continuous possession of the land in question openly and uninterruptedly as per the statutory requirement and on verification, if it is found that letter issued on behalf of the 2nd respondent at Annexure-A is genuine, the petitioner could very well seek for declaration before the Civil Court.

6. With the above observations, petition is disposed of.

Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2010 Same Parties Doddegowda vs The Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-division... Same Subject Property Same Judge Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

Property