Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31469
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.12253/2007 (LR)
BETWEEN
GANAPTHI DYAVA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O DYAVA NAIK, R/AT LOPAGOD VILLAGE,
KYADGI POST, SIDDAPUR TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SAGAN HEGDE, ADV. FOR
SRI.S R HEGDE, ADV.)
AND
1 .
LAND TRIBUNAL,
SIDDAPUR TALUK,
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISION OF
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
2 .
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
3 .
SRI SUBBARAYA DEVARU BHAT
MAJOR, R/AT KYADAGI VILLAGE,
SIDDAPURA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
: 2 :
RECORDS RELATING TO THE CASE NO.TNC.DS.2620 FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND TNS.DSR.II.7A.197/98-99
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERUSE THE SAME AND
TO
QUASH
THE
IMPUGNED
A person is not entitled to occupancy rights in respect of land unless he was a tenant as on the relevant date.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's great-grandmother, Smt. Devi, cultivated land bearing Sy.No.63/1. After her death in 1986, the land was transferred to the petitioner's father with the consent of Smt. Devi's legal heirs. The petitioner's father filed a declaration in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of the land, but the Land Tribunal rejected the application insofar as Sy.No.63/1 was concerned.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's father was not a tenant as on the relevant date but the great-grandmother of the petitioner, was the tenant and she having not filed application claiming occupancy rights, the Land Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application filed by the father of the petitioner insofar as Sy.No.63/1 is concerned.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's father was entitled to occupancy rights in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.63/1.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the petitioner's father was not a tenant as on the relevant date but the great-grandmother of the petitioner, was the tenant and she having not filed application claiming occupancy rights, the Land Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application filed by the father of the petitioner insofar as Sy.No.63/1 is concerned.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ petition.
DT.24.1.1981,
IN
CASE
NO.TNC.DSR.2620, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEX-F
TO THE WRIT PETITION. DIRCT THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO ALLOW
THE FORM NO.7 FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER
DECLARING THE PETITIONER AS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEARING
SY.NO.63/1 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 0-8-0 GUNTAS OF LAND
SITUATED AT KYADAGI VILLAGE, KODKANI HOBLI, SIDDAPURA
TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1.
The petitioner claims that Smt.Devi w/o Thimma Naik
was cultivating 0.08 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.63/1 of
Kyadagi village, Siddappa Taluk. The said Smt.Devi is the great
grandmother of the petitioner, who expired on 14.09.1986. It is
claimed that her name was found in Column No.12 of R.T.C. as
on the relevant date. The petitioner claimed that after the death
of Smt.Devi, the land bearing Sy.No.63/1 was transferred to the
name of the father of the petitioner in terms of an order dated
20.03.1987, with the consent of the legal heirs of Smt.Devi. The
petitioner claimed that from that day onwards his father was in
continuous possession and enjoyment of the land bearing
Sy.No.63/1 until he expired. Later the petitioner allegedly
succeeded to his estate. The petitioner claimed that his father
: 3 :
filed declaration in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in
respect of 27.8 guntas of the land in Sy.No.69 of Kyadagi village
and in respect of Sy.No.63/1 measuring 8 guntas. By the time
Form No.7 was filed, Smt.Devi was alive and she herself was
cultivating the land with the help of the father of the petitioner.
The father of the petitioner thereafter appeared before the Land
Tribunal and recorded a statement that Sy.No.63/1 was
cultivated by Smt.Devi and her name was entered in the
cultivators column. He also stated that he had no objection for
the dismissal of the application insofar as Sy.No.63/1 is
concerned. The Land Tribunal therefore conferred occupancy
rights in respect of Sy.No.69 of Kyadagi village but rejected the
application insofar as Sy.No.63/1 is concerned.
2.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, this writ petition is
filed.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
after the death of great grandmother of the petitioner, the land
was in possession and cultivation of the father of the petitioner
and therefore the Land Tribunal ought to have considered the
case favourably. He submitted that the petitioner is in possession
of the land even as on this date and that the father of the
: 4 :
petitioner was naïve and who did not know the consequences of
his statement. He submitted that since the name of the father of
the petitioner was entered in the revenue records after all the
legal heirs consented, the Tribunal must have considered these
facts and must have granted occupancy rights in respect of
Sy.No.63/1.
4.
Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted
that the father of the petitioner appeared before the Land
Tribunal and categorically stated that he was not cultivating the
land bearing Sy.No.63/1 and that Smt.Devi was cultivating the
said land and that she was in possession of the same as a
tenant. He also stated that the father of the petitioner deposed
before the Land Tribunal that he had no objection to reject the
application insofar as Sy.No.63/1 is concerned and therefore the
Land Tribunal could not have done anything else, than granting
occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.69 and rejecting the
application in respect of Sy.No.63/1.
5.
I have perused the records of the Land Tribunal.
6.
The father of the petitioner appeared before the Land
Tribunal and deposed that the land bearing Sy.No.63/1 was
: 5 :
cultivated by Smt.Devi and that she was in possession of the
same as tenant. The father of the petitioner also deposed that he
had no objection to reject the application insofar as Sy.No.63/1
is concerned. Admittedly, Smt.Devi was alive till the year 1986
and she having not filed any application for grant of occupancy
rights, the petitio
