Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32623
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Mrs. M.G.Uma, J
Balappa S/o. Gidappa Dollin since deceased by LRS, Hanamappa S/o. Balappa Dollin, Dyamanna S/o. Hanamappa Dollin – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Dharwad Bench – Respondent
WP No. 112450 of 2019 | WP No. 105321 of 2018 | WP No. 107457 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. B. V. Somapur, Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, Sri. Anand R. Kolli
For the Respondents: Sri. T. Hanumareddy, Sri. K.L. Patil, Sri. S.R. Hegde
Tenant rights established through court decisions must be upheld unless overturned by due process; Land Tribunal's failure to recognize prior judgments constitutes legal error.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 & 227 - Writ of Certiorari - Land Tribunal order - Petitioners challenged the rejection of their occupancy rights in relation to 14 acres of land, previously granted to them. The Tribunal's order was found erroneous as it ignored the established rights. (Paras 1-11)
(B) Legal Principles - Occupancy rights must be maintained unless appropriately challenged; prior court decisions must be respected to uphold tenancy rights. (Paras 3, 5, 10)
(C)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners contend that they were rightful tenants whose claims were unjustly rejected by the Land Tribunal regarding occupancy rights over 14 acres of land. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The Land Tribunal's rejection of petitioner claims was incorrect, the order to be quashed, and matters remanded to the Tribunal to reassess the remaining claims. (Paras 10-11)
Issues: The legitimacy of occupancy rights granted to tenants versus the owner's claims; proper procedural adherence by the Tribunal regarding established tenant rights was questioned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that tenant rights granted by law should not be dismissed without proper justification, noting the finality of previous judgments protecting tenant occupancy rights.
Result: Writ petitions allowed and order dated 28.06.2018 quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek to quash the land tribunal's decision. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. historical claims to occupancy rights are detailed. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. claims disputed by the landowner and orders to be remanded. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 4. the court finds previous rights in favor of tenants. (Para 10) |
| 5. final decision remanding the case for further evaluation. (Para 11) |
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners in WP.No.107457 of 2018 has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 28.06.2018, passed by Respondent No.2- the Land Tribunal, produced as per Annexure-F; the petitioner in WP Nos.112450 of 2019 and 105321 of 2018 have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the very same order produced as per Annexure-A.
2. Heard Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP.No.105321/2018; Sri.Mahesh Wodeyar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP.No.112450/2019, Sri.Anand R Kolli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri.K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Sri.S.R.Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3(A) to 3(D) in WP.No.107457/2018.
3. The petitioners in these petitions are impugning the order dated 28.06.2018, passed by Respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Koppal insofar as it relates to rejection of the application for grant of occupancy right made by the tenant, that is the petitioner in W.P.No.105321 of 2018 in respect of 14 acres of land in Sy.No.489 of Koppal village. It is the contention of the petitioners that the land in question was owned by respondent No.3 -Dayamappa Rudrappa Badiger and the petitioner in WP No.105321 of 2018 was the tenant, who was personally cultivating the land. Therefore, he filed Form No.7, claiming occupancy right in respect of the entire 24 acres 31 guntas of land. The record of rights for the year 1967-68 and subsequently, 1974-75 to 1976-77 reflect the name of the petitioner as a tenant. However, the Land Tribunal passed the order rejecting his claim of the petitioner in respect of 14 acres of land. The Land Tribunal held an inquiry and granted occupancy right in favor of father of the petitioner in respect of 14 acres of land, while rejecting the claim in respect of 10 acres 31 guntas of land. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed WP.No.16015 of 1991, seeking remanding of the matter for fresh inquiry only in respect of 10 acres 31 guntas of land, which was rejected by the Land Tribunal. The said petition came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 22-03-1999, produced as per Annexure-E, thereby setting aside the impugned order passed by the land Tribunal to the limited extent of rejecting the claim of the petitioners beyond 14 acres, i.e. with regard to the remaining 10 acres 31 guntas of land.
4. The materials on record disclose that, the owner of the land challenged grant of 14 acres of land in favour of the tenant by filing Writ Petition No. 22746 of 1992 . The said Writ Petition came to be dismissed for default, i.e., for non-prosecution, vide order dated 10.08.2000, produced as per Annexure-F. A Civil Petition was filed before this Court by the owner, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2004, produced as per Annexure-G. The owner has preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.4131 of 2004, which also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court as per order dated 22.11.2004.
5. Thus, it is clear that, the claim of the owner in respect of 14 acres of land that was granted in favor of the tenant, was rejected by this Court. The remand of the matter by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as per Annexure-E is to the
