SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA KOTRAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LS Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETTION NO.14530 OF 2007 (LR)
BETWEEN:

1. SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA KOTRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LS
S.G. NAGAPPA S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARAKOTRAPPA,
AGED 48 YEARS

2. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA
KOTRAPPA
AGED 56 YEARS

3. CHANNABASAPPA S/O SANNA GANGAMMNAVARA
KOTRAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS

4. POMPANNA S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA KOTRAPPA
AGED 46 YEARS

5. S G KOTRESH S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA KOTRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

5.A S.G.AKKAMMA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD

5.B S.G.KARIYAMMA
AGE: 10 YEARS, MINOR
S.G.KOTRAMMA
AGE: 9 YEARS, MINOR

5.C S.G.KOTRAMA
AGE: 9 YEARS, MINOR

2
5.D S.G.KAVEERI
AGE: 7 YEARS, MINOR,

5.E S.G.KARTIK,
AGE: 3 YEARS, MINOR

ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER
S.G.AKKAMMA, AGE 40 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O. TALAKAL VILLAGE,
TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BELLARI

6.00 . VIRUPAKSHA S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA KOTRAPPA
AGED 38 YEARSALL ARE R/AT THALAKAL
VILLAGEHADAGALI TALUKBELLARY DISTRICT

…PETITIONERS

(BY SMT SRI S.V.PTAIL AND NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1 .
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPT.
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE-2

2 .
THE LAND TRIBUNAL
HADAGALIBELLARY DISTRICT

3 .
H M KOTRABASAIAH S/O DODDA KOTRAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

3.A
H.M.MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O LATE H.M.KOTRABASIAH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O TALAKAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT:BELLARY

3.B
H.M. SHANKARASWAMY S/O LATE H.M.KOTRABASAIAH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TALAKAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,

3
DISTRICT:BELLARY

3.C
H.M. PRAKASH S/O LATE H.M.KOTRABASAIAH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TALAKAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT:BELLARY

3.D
CHANNAMMA W/O LATE KOTRASWAMY H.M.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O TALAKAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT:BELLARY

3.E
RATNAMMA,
W/O VEERAIAH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O HONAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: KOPPAL,
DIST: BELLARY

3.F
KADAMMA W/O H.M.MARALUSIDDAIAH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HANSIHEGDAL VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI,
DIST: BELLARY

3.G
SHAMBAKKA W/O KUDALLAYYA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. BUDANOOR VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST:BELLARY

3.H
SUMANGALAMA W/O CHANDRAIAH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O UTTANGI VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST: BELLARY

4.
SHEKARAIAH S/O HIREMATHADA GURUBASAVAIAH
AGED 50 YEARS, R/O: K.KODAHALLI VILLAGE,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT

5.
LOKAMMA D/O HIREMATHADA GURUBASAVAIAH

4
AGED 46 YEARSR/O KENCHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
HADAGALI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT

6 .
SRI JAGADGURU GAVISIDDESWAR
MAHASWAMIGALU, GAVISIDDESWAR MATH,
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DIST:583 231.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A-G), R4 AND R5
SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R6
R3 ABATED
V/O DATED 02.11.2022 R3(H) DELETED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 28.08.2007,
PRODUCED HEREIWITH ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

IN THIS WRIT PETITION, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

The petitioners have challenged the order dated

28.08.2007 passed by 2^nd respondent-Tribunal (Annexure- J),

dismissing the claim made by the petitioners-tenants.

Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition

as contended by the petitioners are that the land bearing Sy

No.252/B, measuring 7.41 acres of Talakallu village, Hadagali

Taluk, Bellary District is belong to one Sri Gurusiddeshwara

Mutt,

managed

Sri

Niranjana

Jagadgurugalu,

Marishantaveera Swamigalu, Koppalla. It is further stated

that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of one late

Sanna Gangammanavar Kotrappa, (hereinafter referred to as

tenant) who was cultivating the aforementioned land since

1956 as a tenant. The said tenant filed Form No.7 under the

provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Act’) seeking occupancy rights.

The petitioners pleaded that, the respondents-

H.M.Kotrabasaiah, and late

Hirematada Gurubasavaiah,

(father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5), said to have purchased

the schedule land from the aforementioned Mutt on

09.01.1960 under the registered Sale Deed and they claim to

be the owners of the land. The said Sale Deed was

challenged by the tenant as illegal on the ground that the

first option of purchase was not given to him by the Mutt as

per the provisions of the then Mysore Tenancy Act. The said

claim made by the tenant, was rejected by the Tahasildar,

which came to be confirmed in an appeal by the Assistant

Commissioner, Hospet. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the

said tenant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner,

Bellary and the appeal came to be allowed on 22.04.1967.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondents have filed

Revision before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal in RA No.131

of 1967, which came to be dismissed by order dated

10.07.1967 (Annexure-B). The said order of the Revision

Appellate Tribunal was challenged before this Court in WP

No.199/1970 and this Court set aside the impugned order

therein and remanded the matter to the Tahalsidar Hadagali

for fresh consideration (Annexure-C). In the meanwhile, the

said tenant filed Form No.7 on 30.12.1974. The Land

Tribunal, Hadagali, after making detailed enquiry, granted

occupancy rights in favour of the tenant by its order dated

16.12.1978. It is also narrated in the writ petition that the

contesting respondents have filed suit in OS No.905 of 1961

before the Munsif and JMFC, Hospet. The said suit was

transferred to competent court at Hadagali, and renumbered

as OS No.5 of 1964. The suit is filed by the contesting

respondents seeking relief of declaration of title, with

consequential relief of possession. The above suit is pending

consideration before the Trial court. It is also stated that,

after remand by this Court, the Land Tribunal after enquiry,

by its majority rejected the occupancy rights to the tenant,

however, the Chairman/President of the Land Tribunal

ordered for granting of occupancy rights in favour of late

Sanna

Gangammanavar

Kotrappa,

order

dated

03.02.1988 (Annexure-G). The petitioners feeling aggrieved

by the same, have filed appeal in LRAA No.213 of 1988 and

same was converted into WP No.2250 of 1997. This court,

after considering the material on record by its order dated

18.04.2006 remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh

consideration. Again, the Land Tribunal after considering the

case on merits, by its order dated 28.08.2007, (Annexure-J)

rejected the claim made by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved

by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ

petition.

I have heard Sri Nandish Patil, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners; Sri Vinayak S.Kulkarni, learned

Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1

and 2; Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents 3(a-g) and 4 and 5; Sri Srinand A

Pahhapure, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.6.

Sri Nandish Patil, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners contende

Click Here to Read the rest of this document