Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1729
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. VEERAPPA, J.
DORAISWAMY - PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION No.1809 of 2013(LR)
Decided On : 21-01-2020
For the Appellant :SRI SUBBANNA T.R., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT. DIVYA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE SRI MANJUNATH N.D., ADVOCATE
Headnote:
Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 – Rule 17 – Issue regarding land possession – It is case of petitioners that their father, was cultivating lands, situated at Deveerammanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjanagudu Taluk, as a tenant – Petitioners’ father filed application under Section 77A in Form No.7A. – Said application also came to be rejected by Order – Both Orders passed by land Tribunal were subject matter of W.P. – Court, after hearing both parties, by Order dismissed writ petition. – Father of present petitioners filed W.A. and Division Bench of this Court, by Order allowed Writ Appeal and set aside Order passed by learned single Judge and also quashed Order and remanded matter to Land Tribunal for fresh consideration of Form No.7 filed by tenant and also directed Land Tribunal to put forth case and consider application in accordance with law and also to dispose off matter not later than six months from date of receipt of certified copy of said Order. – It is further case of petitioners that, petitioners neighbours appeared before Land Tribunal to adduce evidence. But Land Tribunal, did not allow neighbours of petitioners to adduce their evidence on behalf of petitioners and did not record evidence. – petitioners filed affidavits of neighbours before this Court as per Annexures E1, E2 and E3 to effect that they appeared before Land Tribunal to give evidence on behalf of petitioners, but Land Tribunal has not recorded their evidence and has not given opportunity to adduce evidence. – Land Tribunal proceeded to pass impugned Order rejecting application filed by father of petitioners. – Hence present writ petition is filed for relief sought for. – Held, On careful perusal of impugned order clearly depicts that Tribunal proceeded to record that petitioners have not produced any records nor have given any statement in spite of sufficient opportunity provided and they have no interest to proceed with case, which clearly indicate that Tribunal has not followed procedure under Rule 17(5) of Rules nor has recorded whether sufficient opportunity was provided to cross-examine opposite parties which does not reflect in impugned order. – Even same is not supported by original documents produced before Court nor is pointed out by learned Government Advocate – Petitioners while filing present writ petition have filed an affidavit of adjoining owners Nanjundaswamy, Siddaiah and Shivaraju, who state on oath that though they appeared before Land Tribunal at Nanjangud Taluk as witnesses for giving evidence on behalf of petitioner side, Land Tribunal has not recorded their side of evidence and has not given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. – Assertions made by independent witnesses before this Court are not denied either by State or by contesting respondent Nos.3(a) to (e). – Assertions made in writ petition have to be accepted – Tribunal has again wrongly passed impugned order without giving any reasons based on records. – Court has no other option except to allow writ petition and remand matter to Tribunal with a direction to decide matter afresh keeping in view directions 6th issued by Division Bench of this Court made in W.A. and pass orders strictly in accordance with law. – It has also been observed that though Tribunal has afforded an opportunity to petitioners, they have not availed same. – It is for parties to appear before Tribunal and adduce evidence, if any, in diligence and prosecute case. – Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
1. The petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the Order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Nanjanagudu, vide Annexure-G.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that their father late Chikkanarasaiah, was cultivating the lands bearing Sy.Nos.119/4, 123/2 and 142 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas, 2 acres 35 guntas and 1 acre 27 guntas respectively, situated at Deveerammanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Nanjanagudu Taluk, as a tenant.
3. The petitioners’ father filed Form No.7 in respect of the said lands. On the first occasion, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners’ father by the Order dated 05.03.1979 on the ground that though sufficient opportunity was given to the tenant to put forth his case, he has not put in his appearance. Thereafter, petitioners’ father filed application under Section 77A in Form No.7A. The said application also came to be rejected by the Order dated 29.03.2001. Both the Orders passed by the land Tribunal dated 05.03.1979 and 29.03.2001 were subject matter of W.P.No.9291/2002. This court, after hearing both the parties, by the Order dated 26.03.2007 dismissed the writ petition.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the father of the present petitioners filed W.A.No.1278/2007 and the Division Bench of this Court, by the Order dated 06.01.2009, allowed the Writ Appeal and set aside the Order passed by the learned single Judge and also quashed the Order dated 05.03.1979 and 29.03.2001 and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration of Form No.7 filed by the tenant and also directed the Land Tribunal to put forth the case and consider the application in accordance with law and also to dispose off the matter not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said Order.
5. It is further case of the petitioners that, petitioners neighbours appeared before the Land Tribunal to adduce evidence. But the Land Tribunal, did not allow the neighbours of the petitioners to adduce their evidence on behalf of the petitioners and did not record the evidence. The petitioners filed affidavits of neighbours before this Court as per Annexures E1, E2 and E3 to the effect that they appeared before the Land Tribunal to give evidence on behalf of the petitioners, but the Land Tribunal has not recorded their evidence and has not given opportunity to adduce evidence. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned Order rejecting the application filed by the father of the petitioners. Hence the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri T.R. Subbanna, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that this is the third round of litigation filed by the tenant against the rejection of application for occupancy rights. Though this Court, while remanding the matter, set aside the Orders passed by the Land Tribunal dated 05.03.1979 and 29.03.2001 and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration of Form No.7 after giving opportunity to both the parties, the Land Tribunal has not provided opportunity of hearing as directed by this Court. Thereby, the impugned Order of the Land Tribunal is in violation of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court. He further contended that though the adjoining land owners of the petitioners wanted to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioners, the Land Tribunal did not allow them to adduce their evidence and therefore, the adjoining land owners filed affidavit before this Court as per AnnexuresE1, E2 and E3. Therefore, the impugned Order cannot be sustained.
8. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that by issue of legal notice dated 27.11.2012, landlord admitted the possession of the petitioners and the same has not been considered. Even the RTC entries in respect of the property in question does not reflect the name of the owner. He further contended that during pendency of the matter befo
