Back
2000 Supreme(Kar) 801
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.
Krishnappa Karad since dead by LRs. — Appellant
Vs.
Hanumanthappa Karad and Others — Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17142 of 1992
Decided on : 21-11-2000
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. S.S. Haveri, for the Appellant.
Mr. Bharamagouda, High Court Government Pleader, B.S. Hadimani, F.V. Patil, for the Respondent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a teacher cannot claim benefits as an agriculturist under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and any claim for a share of tenancy right granted to a joint family should be pursued in the Civil Court.
Headnote:
Land Tribunal - Writ Petition - Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Section 48, Rule 17 - Joint occupancy right - Joint family tenancy - Teacher's claim as an agriculturist - Suppression of material facts - Right to claim property to the exclusion of others - Full Bench decision - Tenancy right as property of joint family - Civil Court jurisdiction - Dismissal of writ petition
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the order granting joint occupancy right to the Petitioners and Respondents by the Land Tribunal. The Petitioner, a teacher, claimed to be a tenant of the land in question, which was jointly cultivated by the Petitioner and Respondents as a joint family. The Respondents contended that the joint occupancy right was granted to the joint family and could not be challenged through a writ petition. The Petitioner's claim was based on the suppression of material facts, including his occupation as a teacher and his exclusive cultivation of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner, as a teacher, could not claim to be an agriculturist and benefit under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The court held that the Petitioner's suppression of material facts rendered the writ petition not maintainable. The court also emphasized that the tenancy right granted to the joint family became the property of the joint family, and any claim for a share should be pursued in the Civil Court. The court dismissed the writ petition with costs to the Respondents' Counsel.
Issues: 1) Whether the Petitioner as a teacher can claim to be an agriculturist? 2) Whether tenancy held by the joint family can be questioned by way of writ petition before this Court? 3) Whether the Petitioner can claim the property to the exclusion of the other properties?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner's occupation as a teacher precluded him from claiming benefits as an agriculturist. The court emphasized that the tenancy right granted to the joint family became the property of the joint family, and any claim for a share should be pursued in the Civil Court. The court also emphasized that the Petitioner's suppression of material facts rendered the writ petition not maintainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/- to both the Counsel for Respondents.
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.4.1992 passed by the Land Tribunal Haveri in Order No. TEN.OCP.SR.149+55, granting occupancy right jointly in favour of the Petitioners and Respondents 1 to 5.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was a tenant of the land measuring 9 acres 8 guntas since 1952-53 and he has been in possession and cultivating the land in question. The Respondents 1 to 4, brothers, and Respondent-5 is another brother's son. It is claimed that the Respondents have divided the property and they were concerned with the lands in question. The 6th Respondent's mother filed resumption and the same came to be abetted in view of the amendment. It is further transpired that O.S. 94 of 1973 was filed by the Petitioner against Respondents 1 and 2 and injunction was obtained against them. It is contended that Form No. 7 was filed by the Petitioner, but the Tribunal has chosen to grant the same to both the Petitioners and the Respondents. That order was challenged earlier in Writ Petition No. 5934 of 1976, which order was set aside and the matter remitted back. On remand again the same order was passed and again the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 24273 of 1981 and again the matter was remitted. It is the same order that is came to be passed for the second time. Now the order so passed on 29.4.1992 for the second time in succession confirming the earlier order by the Tribunal is challenged in the writ petition.
3. In the grounds raised in the writ petition, it is contended that the Tribunal has not considered the oral and documentary evidence; no enquiry was held under Section 48 of the Act read with Rule 17; principles of natural justice has been violated and application for recalling the order filed by the Petitioner was not challenged. Only these four grounds are raised and no other point is raised in the grounds of appeal.
4. In the objection statement filed by Respondents 3 to 5, it is submitted that the land was originally cultivated by the family. Therefore, joint occupancy right in favour of the family of the Petitioner was granted on 24.9.1982 confirming the land as a leasehold right of the joint family and not leasehold right of the individual. Such a right conferred on the basis of the joint family cannot be challenged by an individual before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If at all he has aggrieved, he has to go before the Civil Court to establish his right and not resort to. It is further submitted by Mr. F.V. Patil appearing for Respondents 3 to 5 that originally one Fakeerappa, son of Lokkappa Karad is the father of the Petitioner and Respondents 1 to 4 and also grand father of Respondent-5. The land in question was belonging to ownership of one Lakshmibai Gudi, she is the mother of Respondent-6, present owner of the land in question. The said Lakshmi Bai leased the land in favour of the father of the Petitioner and Respondents 1 to 4 and grandfather of Respondent-5 prior to 1944, as the Bombay Tenancy Act came into force subsequent to 1944, the name of Fakeerappa was entered as a protected tenant in respect of RS No. 17 of Devigiri village by Mutation Entry No. 58. The said Fakeerappa continued to cultivate the land in question as a protected tenant till his death. The record of rights show that the said Fakeerappa continued to cultivate the land in question prior to 1944-45 as a protected tenant and thereafter paying rent at Rs. 80/- per year. After the death of Fakeerappa, both the Petitioner and Respondents 1 to 5, as legal representatives of Fakeerappa, inherited the tenancy rights and continued to cultivate the land in question by joint family.
5. It is further contended that the Petitioner is the eldest member in the family and during 1952 to 1953 he was working as a Teacher and he was the only educated man in the family serving as a teacher in different places. Taking advantage of his literacy, and also the ill-health of Fakeerapp
