Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 14807
- 1 -
WP No. 10801 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 10801 OF 2012 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI NARASIMHA BAIRY
S/O LATE SHANKARANARAYANA BAIRY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/A BVS ROAD, VADERAHOBLI VILLAGE
KUNDAPUR TOWN, KUNDAPUR
UDUPI DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE LAND TRIBUNAL
KUNDAPUR TALUK,
KUNDAPUR,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KUNDAPUR SUB DIVISION
KUNDAPUR
UDUPI DISTRICT.
3.
THE TAHSILDAR
KUNDAPUR TALUK,KUNDAPUR
UDUPI DISTRICT.
4.
THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KUNDAPUR TALUK, KUNDAPUR
UDUPI DISTRICT.
- 2 -
WP No. 10801 of 2012
5.
SRI MANJUNATHA SHEREGAR
S/O LATE HALAGERE SUBRAYA
SHEREGAR
R/A N.H.17, 9TH WARD,
VADERAHOBLI VILLAGE
KUNDAPUR TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT.
6.
SRI. K. NARAYANA
S/O ABBAKKA HENGSU,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/A VADEERAHOBLI VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TOWN AND TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. A. ANANDA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5
R6 SERVED- UNREPRESENTED)
THIS
WRIT
PETITION
IS
FILED
UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING
TO
QUASH
THE
IMPUGNED
A person who is affected by an order of a court or tribunal has a right to be heard before the order is passed.
Headnote:
OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - NATURAL JUSTICE - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights to the fifth respondent over a piece of land. The petitioner claimed that he was the owner of the land and was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the Land Tribunal passed the order granting occupancy rights to the fifth respondent. The court held that this was a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard before the Land Tribunal passed the order granting occupancy rights to the fifth respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the Land Tribunal passed the order granting occupancy rights to the fifth respondent. The court held that this was a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and the consequential order of the Assistant Commissioner. The court directed the Land Tribunal to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
ANNEXURE- B DATED 19.03.2011 IN NO.TRI.10637/
1978-79 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
THEREBY GRANTING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR
OF
FIFTH
RESPONDENT
IN
RESPECT
OF
SY.NO.119/9A MEASURING ABOUT 0.16 ACRES IN
VADERAHOBLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPUR TALUK AND ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
FINAL
HEARING,
THIS
DAY,
COURT
MADE
FOLLOWING:
- 3 -
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated
19.03.2021 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kundapura and
the
subsequent
order
passed
by
the
Assistant
Commissioner on 13.02.2012, permitting the mutation
entry of the name of the fifth respondent consequent to
the orders passed by the land tribunal.
2. On a plain reading of the impugned order passed
by the land tribunal, it is clear that the earlier order
passed by the land tribunal dated 05.11.1980 was
challenged by the sixth respondent in W.P.12744/1989.
This Court by order dated 06.11.1991 set aside the order
dated 05.11.1980 and remanded the matter back to the
land
tribunal
for
reconsideration
after
affording
opportunity to both the sides and to pass necessary
orders.
3. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent
would fairly submit that although the land tribunal gave an
- 4 -
opportunity of hearing to the original applicant as well as
the sixth respondent, nevertheless, the petitioner was
never heard and no notice was in fact issued to the
petitioner.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
petitioner’s
brother-Sri.Parameshwara
Biary,
was
arraigned as party respondent No.5 before the land
tribunal, while the petitioner had acquired rights over the
land in question and it is the petitioner who should have
been impleaded as a party respondent to the proceedings.
It is therefore clear that the impugned order has been
passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The
petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the land was
required to be heard before the land tribunal could arrive
at a conclusion as to whether the original applicant
seeking occupancy rights was in fact tenant under the
owner of the land.
5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered
opinion
that
the
matter
requires
- 5 -
reconsideration at the hands of the land tribunal while
granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein
who claims to be the owner of the land in question.
6. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the
land tribunal dated 19.03.2011 at Annexure-B is hereby
quashed and set aside. The consequential order dated
13.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner at
Annexure-A is also quashed and set aside, while making it
clear that the revenue entries which stood as it was prior
to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated
13.02.2012 shall be restored in the land records showing
the name of the petitioner as the landlord and while
showing the name of fifth respondent as the tenant. The
revenue entries shall be mutated in terms of the orders
that could be passed by the land tribunal.
7. With these observations the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
