Court emphasized discouraging frivolous litigation by imposing exemplary costs on parties making misleading claims, clarifying occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

ORDER :

R. DEVDAS, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 24.01.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar, Mangaluru Taluk.

2. The matter brought before this Court has a checkered history. Earlier too, this Court had an occasion to deal with the matters between the rival parties in W.P.No.14613/2022. But before venturing into the said dispute and decisions rendered by this Court, a few facts have to be narrated.

3. The Land Tribunal, Mangaluru Taluk considered an application filed by Smt.Girija w/o Sheena Poojari, who had sought for occupancy rights in respect of various survey numbers including Sy.No.36/2A. In Form No.7, Smt.Girija, had sought for occupancy rights to an extent of 2 Acres 60 Cents in respect of Sy.No.36/2A. An order was passed by the Land Tribunal on 23.07.1981 confirming the occupancy rights in favour of Smt.Girija including Sy.No.36/2A. However, Smt. Girija once again moved the Land Tribunal by filing an application on 11.10.1996, invoking the proviso to sub-section (6) sub-section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. At this juncture, it would be relevant to notice the contents of the application filed by Smt.Girija. It can be seen from Annexure-E, the application filed by the Smt.Girija on 11.10.1996 that Smt.Girija clearly stated by giving tabular columns as to what was the occupancy rights sought by Smt.Girija in respect of each survey numbers and the extent of lands and what was granted by the Land Tribunal was shown in the last column.

-

4. On a close reading of the application, it is clear that Smt.Girija sought to contend that she had sought for declaration and grant of occupancy rights in respect of 2 Acres 60 Cents in Survey No.36/2A. However, the Land Tribunal conferred occupancy rights only in respect of 1 Acre 65 Cents. This would clearly show that the correction made by the Land Tribunal in its order dated 23.07.1981 striking out 90 Cents and showing 20 Cents were the true facts as accepted by Smt.Girija herself. Therefore, in the application Smt.Girija contended that she was entitled for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of another 95 Cents, other than 1 Acre 65 Cents which were already granted by the Land Tribunal.

-

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioner submits that when these were the true facts and it is clear that Smt.Girija had accepted the fact that the Land Tribunal had passed an order in the year 1981 conferring occupancy rights insofar as Sy.No.36/2A is concerned, in two parcels i.e., 1 Acre 45 Cents and 20 Cents. This Court in W.P.No.14613/2022 was concerned with the validity of the application itself and not precisely in respect of Sy.No.36/2A. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out the statement recorded by this Court in paragraph No.6 of the order dated 12.08.2022 in W.P.No.14613/2022 that the learned Counsel for the petitioners therein (the contesting respondents herein) submitted on instructions that the petitioners gave up their claim in respect of the application made at the hands of Smt.Girija on 11.10.1996. In other words, it was recorded that the petitioners wish to confine their claims in terms of the original order dated 23.07.1981. It is submitted that pursuant to this, the Court allowed the writ petition in part restoring the original order dated 23.07.1981 while setting aside the subsequent order passed by the Land Tribunal on 06.07.2022.

6. It is noticeable that by order dated 06.07.2022, the Tribunal had withdrawn the grant made in respect of lands, which according to the Tribunal were non- agricultural in nature. However, insofar as Sy.No.36/2A is concerned, the original extent of land which was granted in favour of Smt.Girija, namely 1.45 Acres and 0.20 acres were maintained as it was in the original order. Learned Senior Counsel submits that what is now sought to be contended on behalf of the contesting respondents herein is that at Annexure-B in the original order dated 23.07.1981