Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23086
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.209 OF 2012 (LR)
BETWEEN:
VASUDEVA KINI
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
S/O PADURANGA KINI.
1. MAMMAI BAI
W/O LATE VASUDEVA P. KINI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. N. SRINIVAS V. KINI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE VASUDEVA P. KINI.
3. N. USHA KINI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
W/O RAVINDRA KINI
D/O LATE VASUDEVA P. KINI.
4. PRAKASH KINI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O LATE VASUDEVA P. KINI.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NARAVI VILLAGE AND POST
BELTHANGADY TALUK
2
D.K. DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. S.K. ACHARYA, ADV.,)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE-01.
2.
THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BELTHANGADY
R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3.
MEENAKSHI
W/O NAGESH KINI
AGED 62 YEARS
R/T NALKEDABETTU
NITTE VILLAGE, KARKALA TQ AND POST
UDUPI DIST.
4.
GANESH SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMAN SHENOY
AGED 55 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TQ AND POST, UDUPI DIST.
5.
MADHAVA SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMAN SHENOY
AGED 53 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TQ AND POST, UDUPI DIST.
6.
GOPALA SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMANA SHENOY
AGED 50 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK AND POST
UDUPI DISTRICT.
3
7.
N. KESHAVA SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMANA SHENOY
AGED 47 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TQ AND POST, UDUPI DISTRICT.
8.
B. ANANDA SHENOY
S/O LATE VAMAN SHENOY
AGED 42 YEARS
R/O NALKEDABETTU, NITTE VILLAGE
KARKALA TQ AND POST, UDUPI DISTRICT.
9.
PRADEEP KAMATH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATESH KAMATH
MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KALASA POST
MOODIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1 & R2
MR. NAVEEN KUMAR M.G. ADV., FOR
MR. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADV., FOR R3
R4 (a-c), R5-R8
MR. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADV., FOR R9)
- - -
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.6126/2010 (LR)
DATED 14/12/2011.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
Occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 can be granted only in respect of agricultural lands as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act.
Headnote:
LAND REFORMS - OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - AGRICULTURAL LAND - PUNJA LANDS - [Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's father claimed to be a tenant of certain lands and filed an application for occupancy rights. The land tribunal granted the rights, but this was challenged in a writ petition and the matter was remitted for fresh enquiry. The tribunal again granted occupancy rights, but this was again challenged in a writ petition and the matter was remitted for fresh enquiry. The tribunal then rejected the claim for tenancy on the ground that the lands were not agricultural lands. The appellants challenged this order in a writ petition, but the learned Single Judge dismissed it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lands in question were punja lands and therefore, the question of grant of occupancy rights did not arise. The court also found that the appellants had failed to demonstrate that the lands in question were either the agricultural lands or the original appellant was in possession of the land on 01.03.1974. The court also found that the conduct of the appellants in suppressing the material facts also disentitled them to any relief in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this court.
Issues: Whether the lands in question were agricultural lands?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lands in question were punja lands and therefore, the question of grant of occupancy rights did not arise. The court also held that the appellants had failed to demonstrate that the lands in question were either the agricultural lands or the original appellant was in possession of the land on 01.03.1974. The court also held that the conduct of the appellants in suppressing the material facts also disentitled them to any relief in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
This intra court appeal has been filed against the
order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Single
Judge by which writ petition preferred by the
appellants has been dismissed.
2.
Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the father of the appellants claimed to
be a tenant in respect of certain lands bearing
Sy.Nos.59/6 and 59/14 situated at Naravi Village,
Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District,
measuring 0.07 acres and 0.33 acres respectively. He
therefore, filed an application seeking occupancy
rights. The land tribunal granted the occupancy
rights. The order passed by the land tribunal was
subject matter of challenge in writ petition viz.,
W.P.No.15314/89 which was filed by mother of
respondents No.3 to 8. The aforesaid writ petition was
5
allowed and the matter was remitted to the tribunal
for fresh enquiry.
3.
The tribunal by an order dated 23.07.1986
granted occupancy rights. The aforesaid order passed
by the tribunal was challenged in W.P.No.2006/1993,
which was allowed only in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.59/6,
Sy.No.59/14P1
and
Sy.No.59/14P2
measuring 40 cents, in all and the matter was
remitted for fresh enquiry. The tribunal by an order
dated 15.02.2010 rejected the claim for tenancy inter
alia on the ground that the lands are not agricultural
lands.
4.
The appellants challenged the validity of the
aforesaid order passed by the land tribunal in a writ
petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated
14.12.2011 inter alia held that appellants are guilty of
6
suppression of facts inasmuch as detailed order
passed by the land tribunal rejected the claim of the
appellants was not produced. The learned Single
Judge on perusal of Annexure-R2 inter alia held that
land bearing Sy.No.59/6 and Sy.No.59/14 are punja
lands and is classified as non agricultural land.
Therefore, the question of grant of occupancy rights
does not arise.
5.
The learned Single Judge further took into
account the fact that the conduct of the appellants
and held that the same is not bonafide as Form 7A for
grant of occupancy rights was got filed by daughter in
law. The learned Single Judge therefore, dismissed the
writ petition. After dismissal of the proceeding
initiated by original appellant, the daughter in law
filed Form 7A who admittedly resided with the original
7
appellant. In the aforesaid factual background, this
appeal has been filed.
6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
submitted that the finding recorded by the land
tribunal that ht eland in question is not an
agricultural land is perverse and is based on
ignorance of material available on record. It is further
submitted that RTC extracts as well as the rent
receipts, which were available on record have not been
examined.
7.
On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate has pointed out from the record
that lands in question are recorded as punja lands
and are dry lands, therefore, question of grant of
occupancy rights does not arise. Learned counsel for
respondent No.8 has supported the order passed by
8
learned Single Judge and has placed reliance on a
division bench decision in 'SUBHAKAR AND OTHERS
VS.
THE
LAND
TRIBUNAL,
KARKALA
TALUK,
KARKALA AND OTHERS', ILR 1999 KAR (SN 35) 71.
Learned counsel for respondent No.9 has pointed out
that respondents 3 to 8 are not the owners of land in
question and respondent No.9 has filed a suit seeking
the relief of declaration of title, which is pending
adjudication.
8.
We have considered the submissions made
on both sides and have perused the record. The
occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)
can be granted only in respect of agricultural lands as
defined under Section 2(18) of the Act. In order to
claim occupancy right, a person needs to prove that
the land in question is an agricultural land and he
9
was in possession of the same as a tenant on
01.03.1974. The dispute in this proceeding is
confined only to Sy.No.59/6,
