M. R. Javaregowda vs Bette Gowda
2022 Latest Caselaw 9162 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                       PRESENT
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                         AND

          THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

             W.A.NO.220 OF 2021 (KLR-REG)

BETWEEN:

M. R. JAVAREGOWDA
S/O. RANGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT MERKULI VILLAGE,
SHANTHI GRAMA HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 203.
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY. SRI. SANCHAN JAI NANDAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     BETTE GOWDA
       S/O. THIMMEGOWDA,
       AGE MAJOR,

2.     RANGE GOWDA
       S/O. THIMMEGOWDA,
       AGE MAJOR,

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
       MERKULI VILLAGE,
       SHANTHI GRAMA HOBLI,
       HASSAN TALUK,
       HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 203.

3.     THE TAHASILDAR
       HASSAN TALUK,
       HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
                           2



4.   THE COMMITTEE FOR
     REGULATING THE LAND
     AUTHORIZED OCCUPATION AND
     CULTIVATION BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
     HASSAN - 573 201.

5.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
     HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

6.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     HASSAN DISTRICT,
     HASSAN - 573 201.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.SATHISHA KUMAR, AGA)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 04/01/2021 IN WP NO.12121/2013, SAID WRIT
PETITION BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN AND THIS
WRIT APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

      THIS WA COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

Sri. Sanchan Jai Nandan, learned counsel for

the appellant.

Sri. J. Sathish Kumar, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the respondents.

This intra Court appeal is directed against the

order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the learned

Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by

the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this

petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is said

to be in cultivation and possession of the land

bearing Sy.No.299 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas of

Markuli Village, Shantigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk

and District for more than 25 years.

3. The appellant thereupon filed an

application before the Tahsildar seeking

regularization of unauthorized cultivation of the

land. The Tahsildar initially granted 15 guntas of

land. The appellant thereupon filed an appeal

before the Assistant Commissioner, who remanded

the matter to the Committee for fresh

consideration. On remand, the Tahasildar granted

19 guntas of land. The appellant again filed an

appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who vide

an order dated 24.09.2004 again remanded the

matter to the committee for Regularization of Un-

authorized cultivation. The aforesaid order has been

affirmed in an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner

by an order dated 13.03.2007. The appellant

thereafter filed a revision petition before the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed

by the Tribunal by an order dated 05.01.2013. The

aforesaid orders have been upheld by the learned

Single Judge. In the aforesaid factual background,

this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the appellant is Senior Citizen and is

entitled to allotment of land to a higher extent.

However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not

been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

5. We have considered the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the appellant and

have perused the records. The appellant holds the

land measuring 2 acres and 1-26 acre of Sy.No.299

and land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.164. The

Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner as

well as Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, therefore held

that the appellant is not entitled for the allotment of

land more than 19 guntas. The aforesaid findings of

fact has been arrived at by the Assistant

Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the

meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record

which cannot be said to be perverse. Learned Single

Judge therefore has rightly upheld the findings.

6. For the aforementioned reasons, we do

not find any ground to interfere with the judgment

passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the

appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mds/-