Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
K.N. PHANEENDRA, J.
Suryakant Shivalingappa - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.22384/1992
Decided On : 20-08-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: H.M. Dharigond and Sri B.M. Siddappa, Advs.
For the Respondents: K. Vidyavathi, Aga for R1 and R2, Ravi S. Balikai, Adv. for R3-A, R3C, R4 and R8, R3B, R3D, R3E, R5, R6 and R7 Are Served
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Land Tribunal's grant of occupancy rights to a tenant over land in actual possession after due inquiry, and the petitioner's failure to ascertain the exact extent of land purchased, influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Headnote:
Land Tribunal - Land Reforms - Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Sections 48A, 17 & 19 - The court discussed the legality of the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to a tenant over 5 acres 36 guntas of land, which was in actual possession of the tenant. The court considered the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds, the possession of the parties, and the proceedings before the Civil Court. The court found that the Land Tribunal had measured the land in possession of the tenant and granted occupancy rights after due inquiry, and that the petitioner had not ascertained the exact extent of land purchased. The court concluded that the order of the Land Tribunal did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to a tenant over 5 acres 36 guntas of land, which was in actual possession of the tenant. The petitioner claimed ownership over 9 acres of land purchased under two sale deeds, but the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights without issuing notice to the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a suit in the Civil Court, which confirmed the possession of the tenant to the extent of 5 acres 36 guntas.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Land Tribunal had measured the land in possession of the tenant and granted occupancy rights after due inquiry. The court also noted that the petitioner had not ascertained the exact extent of land purchased and continued to be in possession of only 7 acres 4 guntas. The court concluded that the order of the Land Tribunal did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds, the possession of the parties, and the proceedings before the Civil Court. The petitioner challenged the grant of occupancy rights to the tenant without notice, while the tenant's possession was confirmed by the Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the Land Tribunal's measurement of the land in possession of the tenant and the petitioner's failure to ascertain the exact extent of land purchased. The court considered the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds and the proceedings before the Civil Court, and concluded that the order of the Land Tribunal did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the order of the Land Tribunal did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The court directed the return of the records pertaining to the Land Tribunal to the learned Additional Government Advocate.
In the year 1985, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition questioning the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 30.6.1979 in No.LRA/GK/11/19/7677. After constitution of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the same was transferred and a case was registered in LRA No.20/1988 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chikkodi. After abolition of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, by virtue of filing of the Civil Petition before this Court, the said Writ Petition was reverted to this Court for consideration.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal on the ground that the land bearing Survey No.54/1+2 situated at Hulikatti Village totally measuring 36 acres 4 guntas, purchased from its owner to an extent of 9 acres under two different sale deeds i.e., 6 acres in the year 1973 and 3 acres in the year 1975. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the respondent No.3 Nagappa Basappa Giddannavar filed Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights to an extent of 5 acres in the said survey number. Though the petitioner has sought for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 5 acres of land, the Land Tribunal after conducting a farse inquiry passed an order dated 30.06.1979 marked at AnnexureA and granted occupancy rights to an extent of 5 acres 36 guntas. The petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 6 acres of land since 1973 and 3 acres of land since 1975 respectively i.e., two bits of land as stated above. Therefore, as on 30.06.1979, he acquired the ownership over the said property. The Land Tribunal without issuing any notice to the petitioner, has passed the order granting occupancy rights in respect of 5 acres 36 guntas in favour of the respondent No.3. It is also contended that the petitioner has filed a suit in OS No.37/1984 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Gokak and the suit was pending as on the date of filing of the Writ Petition for various reliefs. Therefore, it is contended that the Land Tribunal has not followed the rules for inquiry as contemplated u/s.48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules and Sections 17 & 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Land Tribunal has failed to issue public notice or notice to the petitioner before considering Form No.7 filed by respondent No.3. No opportunity has been granted. Therefore, the order is hit by violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, he pleaded for quashing of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in No.LRA/GK/11/19/7677 dated 30.06.1979 as per Annexure-A. The records are secured by this court through the learned Government Advocate.
3. I have heard the arguments of the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents 1 & 2 and also the counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
4. I have carefully perused the entire records.
5. Earlier, this court has dismissed this Writ Petition vide order dated 15.10.2003 on the ground of delay and latches as the impugned order was passed in the year 1979 itself and the challenge was in the year 1985, i.e., after lapse of six years. Secondly, the petitioner has no locusstandi to challenge the said order. Against that order, a Writ Appeal No.7918/2003 was preferred and vide order dated 9.3.2004, the said Writ Appeal was also dismissed. Against those two order and judgment, a Special Leave Petition was preferred [(Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.15294/2006)] in Civil Appeal No.3638/2006 before the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein vide order dated 21.4.2011, the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the following order:
“We set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench as well as the order dated 15.10.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge to decide it afresh on merits in accordance with law. However, all the contentions shall remain open to both the parties.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
6. In view of the above said judgments of this court as well as the Hon'b
