Karnataka High Court
Sri Byregowda @ Siddagowda vs Sri Narayana Rao Mohite on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.5867 OF 2017(LR-RES)
IN
W.P.No.3411 OF 2012 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.BYREGOWDA @ SIDDAGOWDA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIR L.RS.
1. SRI.MAHALING,
S/O BYREGOWDA @ SIDDAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2. SMT.MALLAMMA,
D/O BYREGOWDA @ SIDDAGOWDA,
W/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3. SMT.JAYAMMA,
D/O BYREGOWDA @ SIDDAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
4. SMT.PUTTAMMA,
D/O BYREGOWDA @ SIDDAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
5. SMT.SIDDAMMA,
D/O BYREGOWDA @ SIDDAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
MARASARAHALLY GRAMA,
2
DODDAMARAWADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562117.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR.DEEPAK, ADV., FOR
MR. KESHAVA BHAT A, ADV.,
MR. K.A.PRAKASH, ADV FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT
ON I.A.1/2019)
AND:
SRI.NARAYANA RAO MOHITE,
S/O GANAPATH RAO MOHITE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.
1. SRI.DEVARAO,
S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO MOHITE,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC:PRIVATE WORK,
R/O NO.22, SHARDA NAGAR,
CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN ROAD,
KONAL KUNTE,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
2. SRI.SUNDER RAO,
S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO MOHITE,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC:PRIVATE WORK,
R/O NO.22, SHARDA NAGAR,
CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN ROAD,
KONAL KUNTE,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
3. SRI.MOHAN RAO,
S/O LATE NARAYANA RAO MOHITE,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC:PRIVATE WORK,
R/O NO.22, SHARDA NAGAR,
CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN ROAD,
KONAL KUNTE,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3
5. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KANAKAPURA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
SRI.NAGARAJA RAO,
S/O GANAPATH RAO MOHITE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.
6. SRI.RAMESH RAO,
S/O NAGARAJ RAO MOHITE,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE.
7. SRI.VINAY RAO,
S/O NAGARAJ RAO MOHITE,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC:SERVICE,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
HANUMANTHAPPA GRAMA,
DODDAMARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
8. SRI.VENKAT RAO,
S/O SRI.GANAPATH RAO MOHITE,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKA HONASHE GRAMA,
DODDAMARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.M.ROHINI, ADV., FOR R1 -R3 ABSENT;
SMT.VANI H, AGA FOR R4 & R5;
R6,R7,R8-SERVED)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
06/06/2017 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 3411/2012.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK
ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
Mr.Deepak, learned counsel for the appellants.
Smt.Vani H., learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against
the order dated 06.06.2017 passed by the learned
Single Judge by which the order dated 11.09.1979
passed by the Land Tribunal has been quashed on the
ground that the owners of the lands in question were
not impleaded.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6
to 8 claim to be the owners of the land bearing
Sy.No.82 measuring 6 acres 20 guntas and Sy.No.85
measuring 6 acres 3 guntas situated at Marasarahally
Taluk, kanakapura. The aforesaid lands were
purchased by their late father vide registered sale
deeds dated 27.01.1946 and 01.07.1952 and their
names were entered in the revenue records.
3. However, the deceased appellant filed Form
No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of the lands
in question. The aforesaid application was allowed by
an order dated 11.09.1979 without impleading the
owners of the lands. The owners thereupon
challenged the validity of the order dated 11.09.1979
before the learned Single Judge who by the impugned
order, has quashed the order passed by the Land
Tribunal and has allowed the writ petition.
4. However, the application filed by the deceased
appellant in Form No.7 is pending adjudication and
that needs to be adjudicated. Therefore, the appeal is
disposed of with a direction to the Land Tribunal to
decide the application preferred by the deceased
appellant in Form No.7 after affording an opportunity
of hearing to all the parties including the owners of
the lands as well as the impleading applicants and
decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
