Back
- 1 -
WA No. 1243 of 2022
& WA No.79 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO.1243 OF 2022 (LR)
AND
WRIT APPEAL NO.79 OF 2023 (LR)
W.A. No.1243/2022 in W.P.No.11701/2010
BETWEEN:
1 .
SMT. RAJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O LATE MUNIRAJU
2 .
SMT SHOBHA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIRAJU
3 .
SMT BHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
D/O LATE MUNIRAJU
4 .
SMT ROOPA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
W/O LATE MUNIRAJU
5 .
SRI NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA
Digitally signed by
R DEEPA
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
WA No. 1243 of 2022
& WA No.79 of 2023
6 .
SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA
7 .
SRI MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA
APPELLANTS ARE
R/AT KRISHNA DODDI VILLAGE
MAHANTHALINGAPURA DAKHALE
JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK – 560083
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . PRAKASH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O OBALA REDDY
R/O BUKKASAGARA, JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK - 562105
BENGALURU DISTRICT
2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORMS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560001
3 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL, BENGALURU – 562106
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
THE TAHSIDLAR, ANEKAL TALUK
- 3 -
WA No. 1243 of 2022
& WA No.79 of 2023
4 . SMT KAMALAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
5 . SMT SAROJAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
6 . SMT SHANTHAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
7 . SMT LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8 . SMT NANJUNDESHWARI
GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE VENKATESHACHARI
AND SMT GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESPONDENT No.4 TO 8 ARE
RESIDING AT M G ROAD
HOSUR TOWN
DHARMAPURI DISTRICT
TAMILNADU – 635109
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. J.C.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1
SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. AGA FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2022
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-
11701/2010 C/w 32155/2011 (LR) AND ALLOW THE DISMISS
THE WP AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LAND TRIBUNAL,
ANEKAL, DATED 22.02.2010 PASSED IN LRF/ATC/2686, 2687
AND 1470/1975-76.
- 4 -
WA No. 1243 of 2022
& WA No.79 of 2023
W.A. No.79/2023 in W.P.No.32155/2011
BETWEEN
SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O G N VENKATESHACHARY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI. GOVINDA DAS, S/O LATE MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT KRISHNA DODDI VILLAGE,
GARUDADRI ASHRAM,
KALLABALU POST, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 .
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001
2 .
THE LAND TRIBUNAL
ANEKAL, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
3 .
SRI MUNIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY
SRI MUNIYAPPA
AGED MAJOR
4 .
SRI NAGARAJU
S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA
AGED MAJOR
- 5 -
WA No. 1243 of 2022
& WA No.79 of 2023
5 .
SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA
AGED MAJOR
6 .
SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE R MUNIYAPPA
AGED MAJOR
RESPONDENT No.3 TO 6 ARE
R/AT KRISHNA DODDI VILLAGE
MAHANTHALINGAPURA DAKHALE
JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK – 560 083
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
7 .
SRI NANJUNDA REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O SRI NANJUNDA REDDY,
AGED MAJOR
8 .
SMT SHANTHAMMA
D/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY
AGED MAJOR
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.08.2012
9 .
SMT PREMEELA
D/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY
AGED MAJOR
RESPONDENTS No.7 TO 9 ARE
R/AT BALLUR VILLAGE AND
POST ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H. AND
SRI. J.C. KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR C/R-1
SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. AGA FOR R2 AND R3)
- 6 -
WA No. 1243 of 2022
& WA No.79 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA
HIGH
COURT
ACT,
1961,
PRAYING
TO
CALL
FOR
RECORDS
FROM
THE
RESPONDENT
NO.2.
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND
TRIBUNAL, RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO. LRF.ATC.2686,
2687, 1470/75-76 DATED 22.02.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE B.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
A person claiming occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 must prove that they were in possession of the land as a tenant on the appointed date of 01.03.1974.
Headnote:
OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - TENANCY - REGISTRATION - CONDITIONS
Fact of the Case:
The appellants' father filed a claim for occupancy rights over land, which was granted by the Land Tribunal. However, the landowner challenged this order, and the High Court remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry. After the remand, the Land Tribunal again granted occupancy rights to the appellants. The landowner's wife then filed a writ petition, and the High Court set aside the Land Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry. The Land Tribunal then issued a notice to the concerned authority and granted occupancy rights to the appellants. The respondent, the landowner's wife, filed a writ petition challenging this order, and the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order granting occupancy rights to the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellants had not produced any evidence to show that they were in possession of the land as tenants on the appointed date of 01.03.1974. The Court also noted that the appellants' claim to be in possession of the property under an agreement to sell did not create any interest in the land, as per the proviso to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court further held that the appellants' predecessor in title had not obtained the land on a tenancy basis. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to be registered as occupants of the land in question.
Ratio Decidendi: To be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, a person must have been a permanent tenant, protected tenant, or other tenant on the appointed date of 01.03.1974. The appellants failed to provide any evidence to show that they or their predecessor in title were in possession of the land as tenants on that date. Additionally, the agreement to sell under which the appellants claimed possession did not create any interest in the land.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.
These
intra-court
appeals
are
filed
under
Section 4 of the Karnataka High Courts Act challenging the
order dated 18.08.2022 passed in W.P.No.11701/2010 c/w
W.P.No.32155/2011, by the learned Single Judge.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of these appeals
are as under:
The father of the appellants filed Form No.7 claiming
occupancy rights in respect of land bearing No.48
measuring to an extent of 4 acres situated at Krishnadoddi
Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Land Tribunal
granted occupancy rights in favour of father of the
appellants vide order dated 24.08.1978. The land owner
aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated
- 7 -
24.08.1978,
preferred
a
writ
petition
in
W.P.Nos.
5937/1979 & 5860/1980. This Court vide order dated
14.08.1984, allowed the writ petition filed by the land
owner and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for
denova enquiry. After remand, the Land Tribunal granted
occupancy rights in favour of the father of the appellants
vide order dated 17.02.1999. The wife of the original
owner, namely, Smt. Gowramma, aggrieved by the order
passed by the Land Tribunal dated 17.02.1999, filed a writ
petition in W.P.No.19866/1999. This Court vide order
dated 03.01.2007, set aside the order passed by the Land
Tribunal and remitted the matter on denova enquiry.
Pursuant to the order of remand by this Court in the
aforesaid writ petition that the Land Tribunal issued a
notice to the concerned authority. The Land Tribunal was
pleased to confer the occupancy rights in favour of the
appellants. Respondent No.1, aggrieved by the order of
the Land Tribunal dated 22.02.2010, filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.11701/2010. The writ Court allowed the writ
petition filed by the respondent and quash the order
- 8 -
confirming the occupancy rights in favour of the appellants
vide order dated 18.10.2022. The appellants aggrieved by
the order dated 18.10.2022, passed by the Writ Court, has
filed this writ appeals.
3.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and
learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
for
respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the records
and passed the impugned order. He submits that on three
occasions, the Land Tribunal was pleased to grant
occupancy rights in favour of the appellants. He further
submits that the appellants are in possession of the land in
question since from 30 years and places reliance on the
inspection report vide Annexure-R15. He submits that
Annexure-R15
discloses
that
the
appellants are in
possession of the land in question since from 35 years and
further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to
- 9 -
consider Annexure-R15 perspectively. He further submits
that during the pendency of the proceedings before the
Land Tribunal, the original owner has no right to execute
the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1. He
further submits that by virtue of the registered sale deed
vide Annexure-E, respondent No.1 has not acquired any
right, title or interest over the schedule property. He
further submits that the sale deed was executed in the
year 2006 and till today, the name of respondent No.1 is
not entered in the revenue records. Hence, he submits
that respondent No.1 is not in possession of the land in
question. Hence, he submits that the learned Single Judge
has committed an error in passing the impugned order.
Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence on these grounds,
he prayed to allow the writ appeals.
5.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1
submits that the appellants have not produced any records
to show that as on 01.03.1974, the father of the appellant
- 10 -
or appellants were in possession of the land in question.
He submits that the name of the appellants are not
forthcoming from the revenue records. He submits that
the appellants are claiming to be the agreement holders
and the owner
