9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the declarants have furnished the declaration without prejudice to their contentions that the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the provisions of the Karnataka Ordinance No.11 of 1975 are not applicable to the aforesaid lands. The land tribunal, belthnagady by the order dated 27.09.1982, vide Annexure-D held that the declarants are holding the lands to an extent of 368.16 acres in excess of the cerling limit. The Tribunal opined that 2820 acres are the exempted lands. After deducting the tenanted lands and exempted lands, After deducting the tenanted lands and exempted lands, the Tribunal ultimately held that an area of 530.16 acres has to the be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining excess holding. After deducting 10 units for each of the declaration, the Tribunal held that an area of 368.16 acres is the excess land. Thereafter the Land Tribunal no moto initiated review proceedings under Section 122A of the Act for reviewing its order dated 27.11.1982. The Order of the Land Tribunal was questioned before this Court by three declarants in W.P.No.40425/1982. So also by the three declarants withdrew W.F.No.40425/1982. However, W.P. No. 1092 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the record as the declaration itself has been filed as the partners of the firm; that fraud vitiates everything and therefore the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by this Court in W.P.No.10920/1983 are null and void as they are obtained by the declarants by practicing fraud. 6. Sri M.R. aohar learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Apex court I the case of G. ran??? others Special land adulation Officer Bangalore reported in (1988)2 SCC 142 in the case of United India Insurance co Ltd V/s Rajendra singh Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1165, in the case of Gurishankar other jethi amba shaknar farming trust others reported in 1996 AIR SCW 2684, in the case of Bank of India Other Avinash D. Mandivikar Other reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4477:SCC 2005 (7) SCC 690, in the case of Union of India others V/s N. Das R. Israni reported in 1993 AIR ACW 2573. And the case,A.V Papayya Sastry Ors Vs Government of A.P. to contend that the fraud visitors everything and as the fraud has been practioned by two respondents, the delay in challenging and as the fraud has been practioned by two respondents, the delay in challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vitiates everything. If the order is obtained by any litigant by playing fraud either on the authority/Tribunal or on the Court, such order vitiates automatically if the fraud is prosed. 9. But in this matter, this Court does not find that the order of the land Tribunal and the order of this court are obtained by the contesting and the order of this Court are obtained by the contesting respondents by playing fraud. The Tahsildar has not acted fraudulently in not referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 79-B of the Act or in not preparing every report property by due impaction of the lands in question. Section 2(18) of the Act defines the word land the said definition is comprehensive definition. The land includes forest land and plantation land. It is clear from the provisions of Section 104 of the Act that the provisions of Section 79-A and 79-B and Section 80 shall not apply to plantation lands. The explanation to Section 104 of the Act further denotes that the plantation means the land used by a person principally for the contravention of plantation crop and includes any land used by such person for the any purpose ancillary to the cultivation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discovered the fraud only on 10.02.2003 when he received notice from the High Court in W.P.No.31150/2002. The review petition is filed on 08.10.2004, i.e., after lapse of more than 1 years. The said delay is also not explained by the State. 12. The State has not preferred appeal against order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10920/1983. It is relevant to mention here itself that the Advocate General in his communication dated 6.9.1999 to the Secretory to the Government, Department of Revenue has opined that no purpose will be served in filing a writ appeal as the Government Order authorising the filing of a writ appeal is issued five years after the order was passed in the writ petition. Advocate General is of the opinion that if the appeal is preferred, same would be dismissed on the ground of laches. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner made certain passing remarks on this communication of the Advocate General. Be that it may, this Court does not find any clement of fraud in the opinion of the learned Advocate General. The Advocate General is the advisor to the State Government under Article 165(2) of the Constitution of India. His opinion should not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate to initiate steps for getting the lands surrendered in accordance with Section 67 by initiating necessary proceedings. It is contended by the respondents that they purchased the properties in question though the registered sale deed dated 24.01.1957. Thereafter they have developed the lands by converting the lands into plantation lands. According to respondents, as on 01.03.1974 almost the entire lands purchased by them were converted into plantation lands. This Court while deciding the matter in W.P.no.10928/1983 has considered the various aspects of the matter and has concluded that the lands in question are the plantation hands. This being the pure question of fact, this Court cannot review the said order of this Court, that too, after a lapse of 14 years, for coming to deferens conclusion The grounds urged in this review petition were already urged before this Court in W.P.10920/1983 and are considered. The memorandum of write petition produced at Annexure-N makes the same clear. As the petitioner has failed to prove that the declarants (contesting respondents) and the Tahsildar have played fraud on the Court and the Tribunal, the review petition fails and is able ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
