SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top