Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 156
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G. Pandit, J
Smt. Mumtazbi Ibrahim Makandar, Nooruddin Ibrahim Makandar, Smt. Ayesha Allauddin Makandar, Smt. Wahida, Yunus Ibrahim Makandar, Zahira Kutubuddin Chachadi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka, The Chairman, Land Tribunal, Hukeri, Dastagirsab Fakrusaheb Sipai – Respondent
Writ Petition No.17640 of 2007 (LR)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B.S.Kamate
For the Respondents: Praveen K.Uppar, Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi
The court determined that a ruling against a deceased party is invalid if their legal representatives are not brought on record.
Headnote:The petition challenges the order of the Land Tribunal which granted occupancy rights on the basis that the original landlord's legal representatives were not brought on record after his death. The KP Act, relevant rules, and procedural inadequacies were considered, leading to the conclusion that the Tribunal's order was invalid and the proceedings must be re-examined with all parties included. The Court framed the central question surrounding the legality of a ruling issued against a deceased party and highlighted that the failure to notify the legal heirs vitiated the process. The order of the Tribunal dated 01.06.2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the validity of occupancy rights must adhere to procedural laws. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. the order of a land tribunal requires the legal heirs to be part of the proceedings. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 3. lack of proper notice to legal representatives invalidates tribunal decisions. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 4. the outcome signifies the necessity for all relevant parties to participate. (Para 7) |
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court under
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners’ grandfather Gous Mohiddin Sultansab Makandar was the owner in possession having purchased the land in question under the sale deed dated 28.04.1943. The said Gousmohiddin died on 08.09.1988 and his son Ibrahim also died on 20.01.2004, leaving behind petitioners as his legal representatives. The respondents No.3, 4, 5 and 6 filed Form No.7 in respect of lands in Sy. Nos.41/1, 41/5 and 41/9. The Land Tribunal, at the first instance, granted occupancy rights in respect of 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.41/9, 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy.No.41/1 and rejected the claim in respect of Sy.No.41/5 by order dated 30.01.1976. Aggrieved by the said order of the Land Tribunal, the petitioners had filed W.P. No.4984/1976 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 29.06.1983 quashed the order of the Land Tribunal insofar as granting occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.41/9 and 41/1 and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. Before the Land Tribunal, the matter was pending and during the pendency, the grandfather of the petitioners i.e. Gous Mohiddin Sultansab Makandar, who was the respondent before the Land Tribunal, being the landlord, died on 08.09.1988. His son Ibrahim Makandar, father of the petitioners also died in the year 2004. The respondents No.3 to 6 failed to bring the legal representatives of Gous Mohiddin Sultansab Makandar on record and the proceedings before the Land Tribunal concluded by passing of the impugned order on 01.06.2006 by granting occupancy rights in respect of the land in Sy.No.41/1 and Sy.No.41/9 which is impugned in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 6 as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents No.1 and 2.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the respondents No. 3 to 6 is wholly illegal as the same is passed against a dead person. Gous Mohiddin Sultansab Makandar, the petitioners’ grandfather, was a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal who died on 08.09.1988 and his legal representatives were not brought on record. Further, the learned counsel submits that no enquiry whatsoever, as required under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, has been conducted. As no enquiry is held by issuing proper notice to the legal heirs of Gous Mohiddin Sultansab Makandar, the entire proceedings is vitiated. Thus, the learned counsel prays for allowing the writ petition.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 to 6 submits that grandson of Gous Mohiddin Sultansab Makandar had appeared before the Tribunal and he had knowledge of the proceedings, therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that non-bringing of legal representatives would vitiate the proceedings. Since the legal representatives had not appeared before the Tribunal, the question of providing an opportunity to the petitioners would not arise. If at all, the petitioners were interested, they could have engaged the services of a counsel and could have contested the proceedings.
6. Admittedly, the occupancy rights wa
