Dr Sanjaya Manohar Gole vs Ananda Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 71 Kant

                               1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                          PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                             AND
      THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

           WRIT APPEAL NO.387/2007 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.    Dr. Sanjaya Manohar Gole
      S/o Late Manohar Gole
      Age: 36 years
      Medical Practitioner
      Ghatge Lay-out
      Opposite to Park, Gulbarga

2.    Sainatha Manohar Gole
      S/o Late Manohar Gole
      Age: 25 years
      R/o Gole House
      Ghatge Lay-out
      Opposite to Park, Gulbarga

3.    Smt. Vijaya
      W/o Late Manohar Gole
      Age: 58 years, Occ: House wife
      M.P.Gole House
      Ghatge Lay-out, Gulbarga

4.    Smt. Santhoshi W/o Vijayendra
      Age: 32 years, Occ; Household
      R/o M.P.Gole House
      Ghatge Lay-out, Gulbarga
                                  2



5.     Smt. Savitha W/o Malimath
       Age: 34 years, Occ: House wife
       R/o M.P. Gole House
       Ghatge Lay-out, Gulbarga

6.     Vaijanath S/o Parameshwar
       Age: 62 years, Employee in
       State Bank of Hyderabad, Bidar

       (All are L.Rs of Parameshwar)
                                                      ... Appellants

(By Sri G.G. Chagashetti & I.R. Biradar, Advocates)

AND:
1.     Ananda Rao
       S/o Deva Rao Desai
       Dead by L.Rs. Vamana Rao
       Dead by LRs. Sri Udaya
       Adopted S/o Vamana Rao
       Aged about 35 years
       Occ: Agriculture
       R/o M.S.K.Mill Road
       Presently R/at. Gulbarga

2.     State through
       Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga
                                                  ..... Respondents

(Sri Sanjeevkumar C. Patil, Advocate for
 Sri A.M. Nagral, Advocate for R1;
 Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, HCGP for R2)

      This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 10.01.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.44379/2004
(KLR) by allowing the said writ petition.

      This appeal coming on for Final Disposal this day,
S.R.Krishna Kumar J, delivered the following:
                              3



                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned order

dated 10.01.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.44379/2004 by

the learned Single Judge, whereby the said petition filed by

the appellants herein was dismissed by the learned Single

Judge.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

the learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record indicates that vide order

dated 13.03.1989, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner,

rejected the claim of respondent No.1 and upheld the claim of

the appellants herein. Aggrieved by the same, respondent

No.1 herein preferred Appeal No.246/1989 before the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred

to as 'the KAT' for short). By final order dated 01.10.2004

(Annexure-D), the KAT allowed the said appeal filed by

respondent No.1 and set aside the order of the Deputy

Commissioner, Gulbarga, thereby granting occupancy rights in

favour of respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the said order

passed by the KAT, the appellants herein preferred

W.P.No.44379/2004 (KLR). By the impugned order, the

learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition; while doing

so, the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that one

Parameshwarappa, whose legal representatives are the

appellants herein was not a protected tenant in respect of the

subject land under the provisions of Hyderabad Abolition of

Inams Act, 1954. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed

by the KAT and the learned Single Judge, the appellants are

before this Court by way of the present appeal.

4. It is relevant to state that in the first instance, by

final order dated 08.06.2009, this Court dismissed the present

appeal, thereby confirming the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants

herein preferred a review petition in R.P.No.2662/2009 before

this Court inter alia contending that the aforesaid

Parameshwarappa was a protected tenant within the meaning

of Section 2(1)(j) of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act,

1954 R/w the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. In support of their contention, the

appellants have produced certain documents in order to

contend that Parameshwarappa was indeed registered as a

protected tenant under the aforesaid enactments. After

considering the said documents and the contentions urged by

the appellants, vide final order dated 13.09.2019, this Court

allowed the review petition No.2662/2009 and restored the

present appeal to its file. Under these circumstances, the

present appeal is taken up for final disposal.

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the memorandum of appeal and referring to the

material on record, learned counsel for the appellants submits

that in addition to the proceedings under the provisions of the

Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954, the appellants have

also filed Form No.7 under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act, 1961 and that the same is pending adjudication

before the Land Tribunal, Aland. It is submitted that on an

earlier occasion, the said proceedings having been closed by

the Land Tribunal, the appellants herein preferred a petition in

W.P.No.20645/1993 which was allowed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court vide final order dated 18.10.2000 by

remitting the matter back to the Land Tribunal, pursuant to

which the proceedings are pending adjudication before the

land Tribunal as on today.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants that the findings recorded by the KAT as well as the

learned Single Judge in the impugned orders will come in the

way of the appellants pursuing the aforesaid Form No.7

proceedings before the Land Tribunal and as such it is

necessary that the impugned orders passed by the KAT as

well as the learned Single Judge are set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1

in addition to supporting the impugned orders passed by the

KAT as well as the learned Single Judge submits that there is

no merit in the appeal and that the same is liable to be

dismissed.

8. A perusal of the material on record, in particular

the impugned orders passed by the KAT as well as the

learned Single Judge will clearly indicate that both the KAT as

well as the learned Single Judge have recorded a finding that

Parameshwarappa was not a protected tenant under the

provisions of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 R/w the

provisions of Hyderabd Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,

1950. It is an undisputed fact that pursuant to the aforesaid

final order dated 18.10.2000 passed in W.P.No.20645/1993,

the proceedings in Form No.7 filed by the appellants are still

pending before the Land Tribunal even till today between the

parties.

9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

the appellants, the finding recorded by the KAT as well as the

learned Single Judge with regard to the said

Parameshwarappa not being a protected tenant will clearly

come in the way and affect the rights and contentions of the

appellants in the aforesaid Form No.7 proceedings pending

before the Land Tribunal. Under these circumstances, though

several contentions have been urged by both sides in support

of their respective claims over the said property, without

expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival

contentions and in order to enable both the appellants as well

as respondent No.1 to put forth all contentions available to

them before the Land Tribunal in the Form No.7 proceedings

filed by the deceased Parameshwarappa, we deem it just and

appropriate to dispose of this appeal without interfering with

the impugned orders passed by the KAT and the learned

Single Judge by making it clear that all findings and

observations recorded on all aspects of the matter including

the issue with regard to Parameshwarappa being a protected

tenant or not as recorded in the orders passed by the Deputy

Commissioner dated 13.03.1989, the KAT dated 01.10.2004

and the learned Single Judge dated 10.01.2007 will not come

in the way of the Land Tribunal disposing of the said Form

No.7 proceedings on merits without being influenced by the

observations and findings recorded in the impugned orders

passed by the KAT and the learned Single Judge as well as

the order dated 13.03.1989 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner.

10. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ appeal is disposed of without interfering with the impugned orders passed by the KAT and the learned Single Judge.

      ii.     It is however made clear that the findings and
              observations     recorded      by        the    Deputy

Commissioner, KAT and the learned Single Judge will not affect the rights and contentions of the parties in the Form No.7 proceedings pending between them before the Land Tribunal.

iii. All rival contentions between the parties on all aspects of the matter including the question with regard to Parameshwarappa being a protected tenant or not are kept open to be decided by the Land Tribunal.

iv. Liberty is revered in favour of the appellants as well as respondents to urge all contentions on the merits of their respective claims.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE LG