Smt.H Chandramma W/O Late ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 294 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                  DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                          PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

                           AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

              W.A. No.100033/2021 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SMT.H CHANDRAMMA
W/O LATE SANNALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O 7TH WARD,
CHALUVADI KERI, HOSPET,
DIST BALLARI.
                                          ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.GIRISH V BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS SECRETARY,
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
      M.S. BUILDING,
      BENGALURU-560 001.

2.    THE LAND TRIBUNAL
      HOSPET,
      BALLARI DISTRICT,
      BY ITS SECRETARY.

3.    SMT.MOOLAGOWRAMMA
      W/O VENKATARANGAIAH
                             2



     SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR
     N.S. HANGAL URF SAVITA
     W/O SURESH HANGAL
     AGE 66 YEARS, OCC:
     R/O KOPPAL, DIST KOPPAL.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1-2,
 SRI.K.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF
THIS   HON'BLE  COURT    PASSED   IN   WRIT    PETITION
NO.41607/2002     (LR)    DATED     02.02.2021      AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-
J TO THE WRIT PETITION PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT LAND
TRIBUNAL DATED 31.08.2002 IN CASE NO.676/LRF/76-77
INSOFAR IT RELATES TO REJECTIONS OF PETITIONERS CLAIM
FOR GRANT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHT BY ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AND PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDERS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


                       JUDGMENT

The appellant seeks exception to the order dated

02.02.2021, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court

has dismissed Writ Petition No.41607/2002 and thereby

refused to interfere with the order passed by the Land

Tribunal Hospet, which was the subject matter of challenge

before the learned Single Judge.

2. The Land Tribunal, Hospet dealing with Form

No.7 filed by the present appellant, who claimed to be the

tenant in respect of the land in question, in terms of order

dated 31.08.2002, rejected the claim of present appellant

in proceeding No.676:¨sÀƸÀÄ:76-77. The order referred

above marked at Annexure-J to the writ petition, reveals

that Land Tribunal in the said proceeding has clubbed

together the applications filed by various persons and

passed orders on all the applications. As far as the present

appeal is concerned, the challenge is in respect of rejection

of the application filed by the present appellant.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would

urge that entry in the record of right for the year 1976-77

indicates that the present appellant was in possession of

the property in question as a tenant and based on the said

document would contend that the entry in the property

record for the year 1976-77 would lead to the presumption

that the present appellant was in possession of the

property earlier to 1976. Stretching this argument further

he would contend that from the said record of right it can

be safely concluded that the appellant was in possession of

the property immediately before 01.03.1974. The learned

Single Judge before whom the same contention was

raised, has refused to accept this contention on the ground

that Annexure-D, the record of right of the property in

question for the year 1973-74, indicates the name of the

landlady as the person in possession of the property.

Placing reliance on Annexure-D, learned Single Judge has

come to the conclusion that the tenant failed to establish

lawful cultivation of the property in question by the

appellant, immediately before 01.03.1974. The learned

counsel for the appellant apart from placing reliance on

RTC for the year 1976-77, could not bring to the notice of

this Court any other acceptable piece of evidence to

establish lawful cultivation of the appellant of the property

in question, immediately before 01.03.1974.

5. In the facts and circumstances narrated above,

no exception can be taken to the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. This intra court appeal thus fails and

dismissed accordingly.

6. No order as to costs.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE

sh