Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10644
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Sri. Chadranath Ariga K., J
SRI G ANNAPPA SHERUGAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Writ Petition
For the Appellant: Sri. Chadranath Ariga K.
For the Respondents: Sri. K.P. Yoganna, Sri. Nagendra Kumar K.
The court emphasized the necessity for fair representation of all parties in land rights determinations.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Section 48(1) - Writ petition challenging order of Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights - Petitioner contends that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by granting more land than claimed by tenants - Court finds merit in the petitioner's grievance and remits the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 2, 4, 7, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Land Tribunal must afford a fair opportunity to all parties involved before passing orders regarding occupancy rights. (Paras 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contests the Land Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights over more land than claimed by the tenants, resulting in a reduction of the petitioner's land rights.
Findings of Court:
The Land Tribunal is directed to reconsider the occupancy rights while allowing the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Land Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights exceeding the claim made by the tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for the Land Tribunal to ensure fair representation of all parties before making determinations regarding land rights.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; the Tribunal's order is set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner contests land tribunal's order affecting land ownership. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding jurisdiction and rights. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the necessity of fair representation. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure-H) in TRI 10910- 77-78 passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal conferring the occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3, to an extent of 0.26 acre in Sy.No.124/1, and to an extent of 0.09 1/4th acre at Byndoor village, Kunkapura taluk.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the father of the petitioner-Dasappa Sherugar was allotted with Sy.No.124/1, measuring 0.25 acres of land in the Partition Deed, and thereafter, RTC extracts have been mutated by the revenue authorities. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the revenue records were mutated in favour of petitioner and same is reflected in the RTC extracts produced at Annexure- B. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, an extent of land in RTC extracts in respect of the Sy.No.124/6, was reduced from 0.25 cents to 15.75 cents and 0.09.25 cents in the land in question and as such, the petitioner has obtained the copies of proceedings conducted before the respondent No.2- Land Tribunal as per Annexure-H to the writ petition. It the is the contention of the petitioner that, though the land claimed by the contesting respondents (tenants) is to an extent of 12 cents in Sy.No.124/1, however, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights to an extent of 0.26 in Sy.No. 124/1, and same has resulted in diminishing the area of land belonging to the petitioner and thereafter, this writ petition is filed challenging the order of Land Tribunal produced at Annexure-H.
3. I have heard Sri. Chadranath Ariga K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Nagendra Kumar K., learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
4. Sri. Chadranath Ariga K., learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to Form No.7 filed by the father of the private respondents herein and submitted that, the private respondents have filed Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights under Section 48 (1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act , to an extent to of 0.12 cents, however, the Land Tribunal has granted 0.26 cents, and in view of the said discrepancy, the land to an extent of 0.25 cents belonging to the petitioner has been reduced and therefore, sought for interference of this court. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the though the petitioner is not a claimant or the land lord in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, however, the Land Tribunal has erroneously, passed the order, resulting in reduction of the land without the knowledge of the petitioner and same has been granted in favour of private respondents (tenants) and as such, sought for interference of this court.
5. Per contra, Sri. Nagendra Kumar K., learned counsel for the respondent No.3, submitted that the petitioner has no legal right as the title of the petitioner itself is to be adjudicated in a proper forum and therefore, since the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and as such, no interference is called for in this writ petition and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Sri. K.P.Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State supported the contention of the respondent No.3.
7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is emerged from Form No.7 filed by the respondent No.3, that the land is to an extent of 0.12 cents in land bearing Sy.No.124/1 (Annexure-D) is claimed by the tenants. The Land Tribunal by order dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure-H), has granted the occupancy rights in favour of the respondent No.3, t
