- In Dr. K. Ravindranath Shetty and ors vs State of Karnataka and ors the Hon’ble Karnataka HC has set aside the order of the Land Tribunal by which it had granted the right of occupancy in respect of land in favour of the tenant, on the ground that all the legal heirs of the deceased were not made parties, and hence could not oppose the proceedings, which was their right.
- The matter was, hence remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to hear the petitioners and to afford them an opportunity of adducing evidence, and then pass appropriate orders according to law.
- The contentions of the appellants in the case was that the tenant who had been awarded occupancy rights in respect of 63 cents of land, had made their deceased father a party to the proceedings, without taking into account the fact that their father had passed away in 1974 itself.
- Thus, the petitioners argued that the proceedings instituted against a dead person were essentially a nullity in the eyes of law. The cause title of the Land Tribunal’s order indicated that Sanjeeva Shetty, the petitioner’s father, had passed away, and that Subbaiah Shetty was representing him.
- The Government pleader also produced records which indicated that the notices which were sent to Subbaiah Shetty were received and a signature was also found on the sign.
- The Court observed that the signature does not indicate as to whether the signature is of Subbaiah Shetty, since the signature found in the verifying affidavit and also in the valalath differ from the signature found on the postal acknowledgement and on the personal notice effected by the Land Tribunal.
- The Court rejected the reliance which was placed by the Counsel for the respondent on Anil M Puthran and ors. Vs. Land Tribunal, Puttur, Dakshina Kannda and anr (2006) wherein it was held that the non-impleading of all the legal representatives would not nullify the order of the Land Tribunal.
- The Court observed that the Land Tribunal was aware of the existence of the legal representatives of the landlord, and since they were not afforded an opportunity to oppose the claim of the tenant, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
