Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S.INDIRESH
C. Krishna, S/o. Late Chandram Bhatta – Appellant
Versus
tate Of Karnataka, Revenue Department, By Its Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and mortgage details of the land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments from both parties regarding mortgage and occupancy. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial precedents establishing the principle of mortgage rights. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. state’s defense of the tribunal's order. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER :
(E.S. INDIRESH, J.)
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 07th October, 2016 (Annexure-P) and Rectification order dated 14th October, 2016 (Annexure-Q) passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Doddaballapura Taluk in Case No.LRF:319/1974-75.
2. The facts in nutshell as averred in the petition are that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.14/1 of Dhargapura Village, Doddaballapura Taluk measuring to an extent of 2 acres and in this regard RTC extracts are produced at Annexures A1 to A10. The petitioner and his father Chandram Bhatta had mortgaged the scheduled land in favour of H. Muniyappa Reddy as per registered Mortgage deed dated 03rd August, 1965 (Annexure-B). The father of the petitioner Chandram Bhatta died during the year- 1980. It is also stated in the petition that the mortgagee-H. Muniyappa Reddy and his brothe
A mortgagee in possession is not deemed a tenant under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, thus invalidating claims of occupancy rights based on tenant status.
The occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were granted based on established tenancy, even after land ownership changes, emphasizing the primacy of RTC entries unless lawfully challeng....
Administrative orders must ensure all parties are given notice and a fair opportunity to be heard; otherwise, they may be deemed invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that tenants dispossessed pursuant to a decree, which was subsequently reversed, have an absolute right to reclaim possession, and their registrati....
Tenancy rights remain suspended during a mortgage but are not extinguished; execution of a mortgage does not imply surrender of tenancy rights.
Tenancy rights remain in abeyance during the mortgage period and are not extinguished by the execution of a mortgage, allowing the tenant to claim purchase rights post-mortgage.
Occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act require a formal application, and family members cannot claim rights over land without such filing.
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed after land vesting under state law does not confer valid title, emphasizing the priority of tenant rights as established in tenancy legislation.
If on the relevant date appellants were in cultivation and possession of the land, they are entitled to registration of the occupancy rights in respect of the land.
The court emphasized that tenants must establish lawful possession to claim occupancy rights, and any purported surrender of tenancy must follow statutory procedures under the Karnataka Land Reforms ....
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
