Karnataka High Court
Sri Denis Quadros vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 January, 2021
Author: B.V.Nagarathna And Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1842 OF 2019 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.DENIS QUADROS
SON OF LATE.MONTHU QUADROS
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT KIDYOOR VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN-576 101.
2. SMT.KOSHA FERNANDES
DAUGHTER OF LATE.MONTHU QUADROS
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDENT OF MATPADY VILLAGE
BRAHMAVARA
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 101.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI: H.JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE(PH))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REVENUE SECRETARY
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE 1ST ADDITIONAL LAND TRIBUNAL
UDUPI, KAUP HOBLI
2
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
3. SRI.AGUSTIN QUADROS
SON OF LATE.MONTHU QUADROS
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT POLICE QUARTERS
KUNDAPURA
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.
4. SMT.MAGADALINA
DAUTHTER OF LATE. MONTHU QUADROS
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT KIDYOOR VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
5. SRI.STANY D'SOUZA
SON OF JOSEPH DOOJA D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT BELLE VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 101.
6. SMT.SUMATHI P.RAI
WIFE OF PRAKASHCHANDRA RAI
MAJOR
RESIDING AT BELLE VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:C.N.MAHADESHWARAN AGA FOR R1 & R2(PH);
SRI: S.K.ACHARYA ADVOCATE FOR R6 (PH);
R3 AND R4 -NOTICE TREATED AS GOOD
SERVICE VIDE ORDER DTD 22.11.2019;
R5 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 08.04.2019 MADE IN WRIT PETITION
NOS.42794 OF 2012 AND 10244 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL AND KINDLY GRANT RELIEFS
3
SOUGHT FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.42794 OF 2012 AND
10244 OF 2013.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants have assailed the impugned order
dated 08/04/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition Nos.42794 of 2012 and 10244 of 2013
refusing to quash Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2
granting occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre of land in
Sy.No.17/3.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellants
being the son and daughter of late Monthu Quadros filed
the writ petitions seeking to quash order dated
19/07/2007 i.e., Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2
granting occupancy rights as per the compromise entered
into between the parties and to issue writ of mandamus to
respondent No.2 to consider the claim made by their father
late Monthu Quadros in Form No.7 in respect of the
petition schedule lands.
3. The learned Single Judge considered that the
petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the children of
Monthu Quadros who filed the application in Form No.7
before the Land Tribunal, Udupi seeking occupancy rights
in respect of 9 items of the land described in the schedule
to the petitions belonging to the contesting respondent
No.6. The said application was considered by the Tribunal
and vide judgment dated 12/11/1976, the occupancy
rights was conferred on the applicant Monthu Quadros in
respect of the land claimed by him. The said order was
challenged by filing Writ Petition No.17777 of 1980 by the
father of respondent No.5. Mr.Pontu Quadros, in whose
favour the occupancy rights was granted who was arrayed
as respondent No.3 and the owner of the land was also a
party in the said writ petition. The said writ petition came
to be allowed and the order dated 12/11/1976 passed by
the Land Tribunal, Udupi was quashed and the matter was
remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to hold a
fresh enquiry regarding the claim made by the petitioner
and respondent No.3 in accordance with law.
4. The Land Tribunal after remand, considered
the application in Form No.7 filed by Mr.Monthu Quadros
and Mr.Joseph (Duja) D'Souza together. It is stated that
during the pendency of enquiry before the Land Tribunal,
both the original applicants i.e., Mr.Monthu Quadros and
Mr.Joseph (Duja) D'Souza died and their legal
representatives were brought on record. Respondent Nos.3
and 5, being their legal representatives and respondent
No.6 being the owner of the land, settled the dispute by
filing joint memo dated 28/06/2007 vide Annexure-G. In
light of the compromise petition filed by the parties, an
extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.17/3 of Belle village, Udupi Taluk
was granted in favour of the legal representatives of 1st
applicant late Monthu Quadros by observing that in fact
the said land was not claimed by the applicant while filing
the application in Form No. 7. The other lands described in
the petition schedule were allotted in favour of legal
representatives of the 2nd applicant late Joseph (Duja)
D'Souza. The claim made by both the applicants in their
applications in Form No.7 in respect of other properties
were rejected.
5. The said order passed by the Land Tribunal
was impugned by filing the writ petitions after long lapse
of five years by contending that respondent No.3 who is
the brother of the appellants was not authorized to enter
into compromise and sign the joint memo. The learned
Single Judge observed that no materials were placed
before the Court by the petitioners to establish that the
application in Form No.7 filed by late Monthu Quadros was
maintainable before the Land Tribunal. It is also noticed
that no enquiry was held by the Land Tribunal when
initially occupancy rights was granted in his favour and
nothing is on record to show that late Monthu Quadros was
in cultivation and possession of the land at the relevant
point of time. Therefore, the writ petitions came to be
dismissed.
6. We have heard Sri.H.Jayakara Shetty, learned
counsel for the appellants, Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran,
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.S.K.Acharya, learned Counsel for
respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended
that even though respondent No.3 is their brother, only 1
acre of land is accepted by him on behalf of the family. He
further submitted that respondent No.6, being the owner
of the schedule properties is ready and willing to part with
some more extent of land in favour of the legal
representatives of the deceased Monthu Quadros.
8. This submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants was disputed by the learned counsel for the
respondents.
9. On perusal of the material on record in light of
the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the
contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants who
are siblings of respondent Nos.3 and 4 who entered into
settlement with respondent No.5 who are the legal
representatives of the other applicants. However, it is
concluded that if respondent No.6 is voluntarily willing to
release any extent of land in favour of the legal
representatives of late Monthu Quadros, the same cannot
be questioned.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no
merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
However, the dismissal of this appeal would not
come in the way of respondent No.6 releasing any extent
of land to the appellants, as he deems fit.
Also, if the appellants have any right, title or interest
in respect of 1 acre of land, which is the subject matter of
compromise, they are at liberty to enforce their rights vis-
à-vis respondent Nos.3 and 4 in accordance with law.
It is clarified that the aforesaid liberty shall not be
construed as a direction issued to them or a right granted
to the appellants.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.1 of 2019
filed for stay is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*bgn/-
