Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., A. S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
HANUMAPPA (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS. AND OTHERS – APPELLANT
Vs.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT
I.A. NO.62796 OF 2020 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 5467-5468 of 2019
Decided on : 13-10-2020
Land Laws – Occupancy Rights – Petitioner claiming to be an agricultural tenant, is claiming occupancy rights in respect of property – Order passed by Land Tribunal would prima facie disclose that a detailed consideration of evidence and analysis of rival contentions has been made – Petitioner had also filed a Civil Suit for decree of permanent injunction – In the suit application seeking temporary injunction was also filed but no interim order had been granted Therein – Such conduct of petitioners would also disclose that petitioners having not agitated matter after disposal of Writ Appeal, had begun to reagitate the matter only when purchaser was taking steps to develop property – Property at this point has lost its character as agricultural property – If that be the position, petitioner continuing to cultivate property or being in possession thereof cannot be accepted at this juncture to continue order of status quo – Interest of petitioner would lie in developed property and can be appropriately compensated – Even on applying tripod test, balance of convenience to vacate order of status quo is in favour of purchaser – Change in nature of land and development made therein would remain subject to result of Special Leave Petition – Interim order modified and direction issued to parties to maintain status quo shall vacated. [Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961] (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner claiming to be an agricultural tenant in respect of the said property as also certain other properties and further claiming to be in possession and cultivation of the same as on 01.03.1974; which is the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 had filed an application in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the property. The Land Tribunal, Bengaluru, South Taluk considered the same. Short issue for consideration at this point is as to whether the petitioner has made out a case for continuation of the order of status quo during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition.
Findings of Court:
Review Petition itself was filed with a delay of 380 days from the date of disposal of the Writ Appeal and in any event the petitioner herein cannot claim benefit of an interim order from the date of disposal of the Writ Appeal.
Result : Application allowed.
ORDER :
1. The respondent No.4 to this petition has filed the instant application seeking modification/vacation of the interim order dated 15.02.2019 passed by this Court. Through the order dated 15.02.2019 this Court had directed the parties to maintain status-quo as it existed on that date.
2. The facts in brief limited to the consideration of this application would indicate that the respondent No.3 herein was originally the owner of the property bearing Survey Nos. 91 and 92, Chikkagubbi Village. The respondent No.4 herein had purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 26.04.1978. The petitioner herein claiming to be an agricultural tenant in respect of the said property as also certain other properties and further claiming to be in possession and cultivation of the same as on 01.03.1974; which is the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 had filed an application in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the property. The Land Tribunal, Bengaluru, South Taluk considered the same in case bearing No. LRF(B)CJ; 126674-75.
3. At the first instance, the Land Tribunal through its order dated 26.12.1981 allowed the application and granted the occupancy right in favour of the petitioner herein. The respondent No.4 herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said order as he was not made a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, assailed the order of the Land Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.30301/1982. The High Court through its order dated 23.09.1997 quashed the order passed the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after providing opportunity to the respondent No.4. Subsequent thereto evidence was tendered by the parties and the Land Tribunal having considered the matter; through a detailed order dated 16.09.1998 rejected the application dated 31.12.1974 filed by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the order had assailed the same before the High Court in W.P.No.30602/1998. The High Court through the order dated 14.10.1998 upheld the order of the Land Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner filed an intra-court appeal in W.A. No. 1818/2008. The Division Bench, by its order dated 03.12.2015 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner thereafter belatedly filed a Review Petition in the year 2017 in Review Petition No.28/2017 which came to be dismissed through the order dated 21.06.2017. It is in that circumstance the petitioner has filed the special leave petition before this Court. This Court while directing notice to the respondent had granted the ad-interim order of status-quo. The respondent No.4 having appeared has filed a counter-affidavit to the Writ Petition and this application seeking modification/vacation of the interim order.
5. In the above background we have heard Mr. Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel for the applicant/respondent No.4 and Mr.S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent to this application who is the petitioner in the special leave petition.
6. The short issue for consideration at this point is as to whether the petitioner has made out a case for continuation of the order of status-quo during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition. As noticed, the claim of the petitioner is that he was a tenant in cultivation of the property as on 01.03.1974. Such claim is sought to be justified by contending that his name is indicated in the cultivator's Column of the RTC and that such tenancy was on crop sharing basis. The respondent No.4 who has filed the instant application has however disputed the claim. Though the respondent No.4 purchased the property on 26.04.1978 i.e. subsequent to the appointed date, the interest in the property as claimed by the respondent No.4 has been accepted by the High Court in Writ Petition No.30301/1982 through the order dated 23.09.1997 and the matter had been remanded to the Land Tribunal for fres
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
