Karnataka Court November 1977 Judgments
Shiddappa Kariyappa Gouda and anr. Vs. the Land Tribunal, Ranebennur a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant53; 1978(1)KarLJ83
Bhat, C.J. 1. This appeal, directed against the order of Bhimiah, J., made in Writ Petition No. 7623 of 1976, arises out of the applications of the appellants for grant of occupancy right in respect of a part of the land comprised in R. S. No. 303/B1 of Ranebeunur. Respondents 2 to 4 were the owners of the said land. The Land Tribunal, Ranebennur, rejected the applications of the appellants, who are brothers and aggrieved by the said order, the appellants approached this Court for relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in Writ Petition No. 7623 of 1976, which came up for preliminary hearing before Bhimiah, J. The learned Single Judge rejected the Writ Petition at that stage itself. This appeal is directed against the said order.2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The ground urged by Sri V. S. Gunjal, learned Counsel for the appellants is that the order of the Tribunal, is not a speaking order and that the Tribunal has not given reasons for the conclus...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Vs. the Land Tribunal, Bagalkote Taluk and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant44; ILR1978KAR12
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This writ appeal brought on behalf of a landholder arises out of proceedings under Section 48-A of the Kamataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', initiated on the application of Umalappa, the third respondent, for grant of occupancy right in respect of 4 acres 1 gunta of agricultural land comprised in Survey No. 66/B of Hiregulbal village of Bagalkot Taluk in the District of Bijapur.2. Before the Tribunal, the third respondent admitted that he was not personally cultivating the land since about four years before the date of his examination before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the second respondent Sagarappa was cultivating the land personally after the applicant Umalappa had ceased to cultivate and, therefore, it conferred occupancy right on Sagarappa. It is relevant to state that the second respondent Sagarappa was not an applicant before the Tribunal for registration of occupancy under Section 48-A of the Act. Exhi-bit-B, the certi...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Shakthi Velu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1238
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision by the State of Karnataka is directed. against the order of discharge recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate, VI Court, Bangalore City for the offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the I.P.C.2. It appears that a police report was instituted by one S. T. Ramachandra Rao on 18-11-1976. It is stated in the complaint that Shashikala, daughter of S.T. Ramachandra Rao, 'aged about 18 years' left the house on 18-11-1976 at about 6-30 a.m., to purchase some food articles but did not return to her home. Thereafter, the brother of the girl Shashikala went to fetch her and found her in the company of the accused in his room, and on a later date Shashikala was recovered along with the accused. After receiving the complaint the police started investigation, based on the first information report, examined some witnesses, and ultimately submitted the charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 363 and 376, I.P.C., against the accused Shakthi Velu. The learned Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Range Forest Officer and ors. Vs. Anant Venkataram Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1374
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This is an application under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The facts of the case are, that a vehicle belonging to the respondent was noticed on 1-2-1976 carrying sandalwood billets which were stated to be smuggled from the forest. The said vehicle was intercepted and subsequently a prosecution case started against the respondent and the Divisional Forest Officer, under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), confiscated the vehicle. Under Section 71-D an appeal was preferred against the order of confiscation before the Sessions Judge and the said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition in this Court presumably under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That petition was decided on merit and the order of confiscation was set aside. The present petition is directed against that order of the Court.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Vedavati
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1375
ORDERC. Honniah, J.1. The Range Forest Officer, Puttur, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Puttur against the accused on 24-11-1976 alleging that she had unauthorisedly cut and removed 32 trees of various kinds situated in R.S. Nos. 104/2 and 106 of Kudipady village, belonging to the Government on 25-l2-1974, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 33 (v) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 read with Rules 25 (3) and 43 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The accused appeared in the court and raised an objection that the Court should not take any cognizance of the offences in view of the bar under Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. The. learned Magistrate without giving any reasons condoned the delay although the delay was not explained. Thereupon, 'the accused filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada at Mangalore. The learned Sessions Judge held that there was delay in filing the complaint and that dela...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Devanna Naik Vs. Venkatramana Thimmanna Naik and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant56; ILR1978KAR175; 1978(1)KarLJ70
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of the proceedings initiated under Chapter III of the Karnataka Land 'Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), for grant of occupancy right in respect of two lands comprised in Block Nos. 253 and 455 of Mogta village of Ankola taluk in the District of North Kanara.2. The first respondent-Venkatavamana Thimntanna Naik is a land-holder in respect of Block No. 253 measuring 15 guntas. He was also the tenant of the land comprised in Block No. 455 measuring 17 guntas. The appellant Nagappa Devanna Naik alleging that he has been the tenant of both these lands under the first respondent immediately prior to 1-3-1974, prayed for grant of occupancy right under Section 48-A of the Act. The first respondent who was the main tenant of Block No. 455, filed an application for grant of occupancy right in respect of the said land in his favour under Section 48-A. On both the applications, the Tribunal issued notice to the interested parties in F...
Tag this Judgment!Sangappa Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant47; 1978(1)KarLJ43
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This writ petition arising under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act,' raises an important question of law touching the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal constituted under the Act.2. The second respondent Srinivas Rao Kasimpurkar is a land-holder in Bidar Taluk. The petitioner Sangappa made an application in form No. 7 under Section 48-A of the Act for grant of occupancy right over an area of 18 acres 18 1/2 gunthas in Survey No. 77 of Kasimpur village in Bidar Taluk belonging to the second respondent land-holder on 31-12-1974. On the said application having been filed before the Land Tribunal, Bidar Taluk, notices were issued in form No. 9 to the petitioner and the second respondent's wife Susheela Bai. In his application, the petitioner had stated that he has been Cultivating the land as tenant since the year 1958. The notice issued in form No. 9 reads thus :'Whereas the lands mentioned below have vested in the State Government unde...
Tag this Judgment!Shivasharanappa Veerabhadrappa Kolar and ors. Vs. Assistant Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant37; 1978(2)KarLJ136
Malimath, J.1. The petitioners claim to be the members of the third respondent the Bidar Sahabara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Halliked, Bidar. The general meeting of the third respondent was scheduled to take place on 23-9-1977 as per the calendar of events issued on 6-8-1977. On 20-9-1977 the State Government issued a Notification No. RDC 232 COF 77, Exhibit 'D' under Section 121 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), applying the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Act with certain modifications in relation to annual general meeting of a Co-operative Sugar Factory of which a Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society is a member for the Co-operative year 1975-76. The said notification provides that the annual general meeting for the year 1975-76 of a Co-operative Sugar Factory of which a Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society is a member shall, if not already held, be held on the date of its annual general meeting for the year 1976-77, The p...
Tag this Judgment!Chowranna Vs. Basappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1977
Reported in: 1978(1)KarLJ103; (1978)IILLJ42Kant
ORDER1. In these two writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other direction to respondent 1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioner's daughter Kumari Josephin (WP. 392/75) and the son of the petitioner Jagadish (WP. 3020/76) as office clerks in the Account's Office at Mysore Division. These two petitions are by the wards of the petitioners in both writ petitions.2. The case of the petitioners is that Railways Trade Unions, declared railway strike in the month of May, 1974. It was declared illegal. However, the Union Government was anxious to see that railways functioned for the nation without the workers being intimidated. The Railways Minister, announced in a speech in the Rajya Sabha on May 3, 1974 certain benefits for the workers who continued to work in whatever difficult situation that may arise during the period of strike. The assurances given for the loyal workers who faced the diffic...
Tag this Judgment!FakruddIn Sheriff Vs. the Land Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant45; 1978(1)KarLJ40
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is the owner of many lands, in regards to portions of which Respondents 2 to 32 have succeeded before the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura, in securing occupancy rights in favour of themselves, has challenged the order so granting occupancy rights. That order is dated 6-11-1975 and has been passed by the Land Tribunal in 31 proceedings.2. The true copy of the order is at Exhibit 'B' : to read the order at Exhibit 'B', leads to a strange experience. The name of the applicant and the land for which he has applied is mentioned in the first column and as against that, it is narrated that his case was considered and his claim was granted. In view of this state of affairs, the learned counsel appearing on both the sides fairly filed a Joint Memo stating that the order in question is not a speaking order and the law requires that it should be quashed.3. Apart from the aforementioned fact which makes the order liable to be quashed, it is to be observed that the Tribunal wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »