2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6780
- 1 -
NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB
WA No. 759 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 759 OF 2022 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT MUNIYELLAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
SRI M.K.MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
KARIYANNA PALYA
SAINT THOMAS TOWN POST
BANGALORE – 560 084
PRESENTLY R/AT No.99
KSFC LAYOUT
OIL MILL ROAD
LINGARAJAPURAM
BANGALORE – 560 084.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE NORTH
2ND FLOOR
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD
BANGALORE – 560 009
BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
Digitally
signed by
SUMA B N
Location:
High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB
WA No. 759 of 2022
2.
THE STATE OF KARNTAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTEMNT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
SRI D. VENKASWAMY GOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
3.
SRI MUNIVENKATAPAP
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O LATE VENAKATASWAMY GOWDA
4.
SRI MUNIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
S/O LATE VENAKATASWAMY GOWDA
5.
SMT ANUSUYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O LATE VENAKATASWAMY GOWDA
6.
LAKSHMAMMA
AGED 48 YEARS
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY GOWDA
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE
R/AT ADUR VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE – 560 049.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a)SET-ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.38520/2014
- 3 -
NC: 2023:KHC:21020-DB
WA No. 759 of 2022
DATED:21/07/2022 AND IN CONSEQUENCE. b)SET-ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - LAND
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE IN CASE LRF
NO.B.709/1975-197 DATED 31/07/2014 AND c)PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTIONS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
This appeal is against the order dated 21.07.2022
passed in W.P.No.38520/2014 (LR) filed by the legal
representative of deceased Smt.Muniyellamma by which
the said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single
Judge declining to interfere with the order dated
31.07.2014 passed by the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal.
The aforesaid writ petition was filed contending
that confirmation of occupancy rights in respect of land
bearing Sy.No.110 measuring 2 acres 1 guntas belonging
to the landlady-Muniyellamma in favour of Venkataswamy
- 4 -
Gowda (since deceased represented by respondent Nos.3
to 6) was illegal as there was no tenancy and his
occupation /possession in respect of the subject land on
the basis of revenue entries obtained fraudulently, was
illegal.
The learned Single Judge taking note of the
reasoning assigned by the respondent No.1/Land Tribunal,
more particularly, the deposition of the parties therein
came to the conclusion that Venkataswamy Gowda the
predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.3 to 6 was in
possession and also in view of the admission by the
landlady -Muniyellamma with regard to possession of said
Venkataswamy Gowda before Land Tribunal, dismissed
the
writ
petition.
Aggrieved
by
the
same,
legal
representative of landlady-Muniyellamma is before this
Court by way of this writ petition.
- 5 -
Amaresh A.Angadi, learned counsel for the
appellant
reiterating
the
grounds
urged
in
the
memorandum of appeal submitted that impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge is without taking into
consideration of the fact that there was no lease as known
to
law
executed
between
Muniyellamma
and
Venkataswamy Gowda. That the entries in the revenue
records for the year 1970-1978 are fraudulent and the
same were not prepared in the manner known to law.
Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NARAYAN
LAXMAN PATIL VS. M/S GALA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
PVT. LTD & ORS. 2016 SAR (CIVIL) 350 submitted that
since the revenue entries are not made in the manner
known to law the same have no legal sanctity and Land
Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge have thus erred in
relying upon the said revenue entries. Hence, he submits
that appeal raises a serious legal question warranting
interference.
- 6 -
Heard and perused the records.
It is necessary to refer to the findings of Land
Tribunal on the points for consideration framed in its
order.
Relevant
portion
of
the
order
is
extracted
hereunder;
“Based on the arguments addressed by the
respective the following
question arises for consideration.
1. Whether the land bearing Sy No 110 of
Adur Village, is vested with the state?
2. Whether the applicant is entitle for grant
of occupancy rightes?
3. What order?
The contention of the original applicant is that he is
the tenant under smt.muniyellamma and he was
giving the WARA in respect of the subject land, who
was the resident of Bendiganahalli Village, Hoskote
Taluk. On behalf of the applicant D.Munigowda who
is the Hoskote Taluk son of original applicant has
been examined and he contended that his father
was cultivating the land in question as tenant. He
further deposed that his father and himself was
giving the WARA to land owner. The RTC for the
year 1973-1974 and 1975-1976 speaks that Sri
Venkataswamy gowda was in possession and he
was only cultivating the land as a tenant. In the
cross- examination he clearly stated that paying the
WARA to the land owner Smt. Muniyellamma by
way of ragi, Johar, Horse gram. Further in the
cross-examination the respondent failed to make
out the case that the applicant is not in possession
- 7 -
of the land in question as tenant. The PW-2-
papanna and PW-3. Venkateshappa were examined
who
have
categorically
stated
that
D.
Venkataswamy gowda was in possession and
cultivating the land in question as tenant and he
was
paying
the
wara
to
the
land
owner
Smt.Muniyellamma. The respondent failed to elicit
in cross- examination AW1 to AW3 for