Karnataka High Court
Smt. Koyinabai W/O. Gopal Devakhate vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688
WP No. 60547 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 60547 OF 2012 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KOYINABAI
W/O GOPAL DEVAKHATE,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NANDIKURULI VILLAGE,
KEMPATTI HEMLET, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SURABHI KULKARNI., AND
SRI.CHETAN MUNNOLI., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed by M.S.BUILDING,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELGUAM.
3. SRI. PUSHPENDRASING
S/O APPASAHEB NIMBALKAR DESAI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S,
3(a) SMT. KUSUMA
D/O PUSHPENDRASING NIMBALKAR DESAI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688
WP No. 60547 of 2012
R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
4. SMT. KALLAVVA URF RATNABAI
W/O. MALLAPPA SADALAGI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BENADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI-591 210.
DIST: BELGAUM.
5. SMT. AKKATHAI
W/O. BALU KARUNI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KAMATANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: HUKKERI-591 317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI.RAJANANDA LATKAN., ADVOCATE
FOR R4 AND R5 [ABSENT])
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP. THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath., learned AGA for respondents 1 and 2 have appeared in person.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688 WP No. 60547 of 2012 There is no representation on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, either personally or through video conferencing.
2. The notice to the third respondent was ordered on 06.12.2012. A perusal of the office note depicts that the third respondent is served and unrepresented. She has neither engaged the services of an Advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.
3. The order dated: 18.08.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Raibag in £ÀA.nJ£ï¹/J¸ïDgï/32+747/£ÀA¢PÀÄgÀĽ vide Annexure-A is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
5. The short point that requires consideration is, whether the order of the Land Tribunal requires interference.
6. Suffice it to note that one Appaiah Rama Naik was a permanent tenant of a land-bearing Sy.No.86/1, measuring to -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688 WP No. 60547 of 2012 an extent of 09 Acres and 10 Guntas situated at Nandikuruli Village. The petitioner contends that Appaiah Rama Naik executed a Will in her favor on the 10th day of August 1990. Thus, she has become the absolute owner of the said land. Based on the Will, Smt.Koyinabai filed a suit on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Gokak in O.S.No.26/1996 seeking a declaration that she is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.86/1 situated at Nandikuruli Village. The Trial Court vide Judgment dated: 20th day of June 2006 decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the legal representatives of Appaiah Rama Naik preferred an appeal in R.F.A No.54/2007. This Court while disposing of the appeal observed that the plaintiff is not the heir of deceased Appaiah Rama Naik and placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in SANGAPPA KALYANAPPA BANGI VS. LAND TRIBUNAL, JAMKHANDI & OTHERS reported in ILR 1999 KAR 863 (SC) held that the petitioner does not come within the ambit of the heirs under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act nor she become descendant of Appaiah or related to deceased Appaiah as legitimate legacy. Therefore, the Court held that she is not entitled to claim a declaration on -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688 WP No. 60547 of 2012 the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by Appaiah Rama Naik. Accordingly, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was set-aside vide judgment dated 05th day of July 2007.
Counsel Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni., in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the High Court while disposing of the case has observed that the plaintiff is in possession of the property, hence she cannot be dispossessed without due course of law. She argued by saying that the Tribunal had overlooked this and erroneously rejected her claim.
The issue revolves around the rejection of the claim about the grant of occupancy rights. As already noted above, the petitioner based her claim over the land in question based on the Will. In the Regular First Appeal, this Court held that the petitioner is not an heir under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and she is not a descendant of Appaiah Rama Naik. Hence, it is noticeably clear that she is not an heir and descendant of Appaiah Rama Naik. Therefore, it is hard to say that she had the land in question as of 01.03.1974. On the contrary, Appaiah Rama Naik was in possession of the land in -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688 WP No. 60547 of 2012 question as of the relevant date, hence, it can be safely concluded that the Land Tribunal is justified in concluding that the legal representatives of deceased Appaiah Rama Naik are entitled to grant of occupancy rights. I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18