Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16478
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
E.S. INDIRESH, J
SMT. B.C. NIRMALA KUMARI SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.54209 OF 2013 (LR-SEC 48A)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI S.G. HEGDE
For the Respondents:SRI MANJUNATH K. H.C.G.P., SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
Jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal requires proper filing of occupancy rights applications; failure to submit Form No.7 invalidates claims.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Jurisdiction of Land Tribunal - Petitioners challenged the order of the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy rights over land cultivated by their father, asserting that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review earlier orders. The court found that the petitioners failed to file necessary Form No.7 and upheld the Tribunal’s findings. (Paras 8, 12, 14)
(B) Land Reforms - Occupancy Rights - The court reiterated that without the necessary application for occupancy rights, claims by the petitioners against their father were impermissible, affirming the principle that jurisdiction cannot be exercised without proper filings. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed occupancy rights over land previously granted to their father, challenging the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review an earlier order. They argued that the Tribunal acted beyond its authority after a Division Bench’s ruling.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the Tribunal’s findings, emphasizing the absence of Form No.7 as a basis for the petitioners' claims.
Issues: The key issues included the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights and the procedural requirements for such claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that jurisdictional authority is contingent upon the proper filing of applications, and the petitioners could not claim rights without compliance with procedural requirements.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to land occupancy rights based on jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the filing of form no.7 and jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on the procedural requirements. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. findings regarding the lack of proper filings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final decision on the merits of the case. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by respondent No.2 in case No.LRF/943/1979-80 produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition, inter-alia, seeking for declaration that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to review the earlier order dated 16.02.1994 produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition.
2. It is the case of petitioners that the land bearing Sy.No.28(New No.38) measuring 4.35 acres of Jodi Papanahalli, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk was cultivated by one B.H. Narayanaswamy, the husband of late Venkatamma. It is also stated that the land has been classified as Inam land as per personal and Miscellaneous Inam under the provisions of Mysore Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short 'Act of 1954'). It is also stated that, the husband of late Venkatamma-B.H.Narayanaswamy has filed an application in Form No.1 before the Competent Authority seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the subject land. The said application was registered as case No.15, 9 and 14/1959-60, as the other persons in the same village have also claimed in different survey numbers.
3. The Competent Authority after considering the material on record, by order dated 21.12.1967, granted occupancy right in favour of Sri. B.H.Narayanaswamy under Section 6 of the Act of 1954 (Annexure-B). It is also stated in the petition that, at the time of granting of the land in favour of said Sri. B.N. Narayanaswamy, one Sri. Annayyappa was cultivating the land in question as a tenant and after the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 , the said Sri. Annayyappa has filed an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of the subject land. The said application was registered as LRF.No.2/1974-75 and respondent No.2-Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry, was pleased to grant occupancy right in favour Sri. Annayyappa in respect of the subject land bearing Sy.No.28(New Sy.No.38) in LRF No.2/1974-75 dated 16.10.1976 (Annexure-C). It is further stated in the petition that the survey Authorities have conducted the re-survey of the land in question and also phodi and durasth has been made with regard to the subject land. It is further stated that respondent No.3 herein has challenged the order dated 16.10.1976 (Annexure-C) before this Court in WP.No.46355/2002 and this Court vide order dated 08.09.2003 (Annexure - D), allowed the writ petition and as such, remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal with a direction to transfer the application of respondent No.3 insofar as relates to the land in question, to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition Act to re-consider and pass appropriate orders on the said application. It is also stated in the petition that the original grantee before the Land Tribunal - B.Annayyapppa has sold the land in question in favour of one Sri. N.K.Ramaswamy Iyengar as per the registered Sale Deed dated 22.01.1988 (Annexure-E). Thereafter, the said purchaser of the land-Sri. N.K. Ramaswamy Iyengar had approached the Tahsildar, Devanahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk for change of mutation entry in respect of the subject land and in this regard, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, on 16.11.1988 as per (Annexure-F) passed the order. In the meanwhile, the said Sri. N.K. Ramaswamy Iyengar has sold the land in question in favour of Sri. N.Ramaiah as per registered Sale Deed dated 18.01.1992 and thereafter, the mutation records have been accordingly modified. In the meanwhile, petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 08.09.2003 in WP.No.46355/2002 (Annexure-D) b
