Karnataka High Court
Sri Hukra Gowda Since Dead By Lrs vs Smt Nagarathna on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.528/2022(LR-SEC 48)
BETWEEN:
SRI HUKRA GOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. VIMALA
AGED YEARS
W/O CHANDRAPPA GOWDA.
2. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED YEARS
S/O CHANDRAPPA GOWDA.
3. SRI LAXMAN GOWDA
AGED YEARS
S/O CHANDRAPPA GOWDA.
4. SRI RAMANNA GOWDA
AGED YEARS
S/O HUKRA GOWDA.
APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDENTS OF KANJAN HOUSE
KALLUR POST, MALAVANTHIGE
VILLAGE, BELTAHNGADY TALUK
D.K. - 574 214. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR K.N, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SMT. NAGARATHNA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
W/O LATE ARAKAKEERTHY
R/AT BANGADY PETE HOUSE
POST BANGADY
TALUK BELTHANGADY
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 214.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BELTHANGADY
D.K. DISTRICT - 576 001
BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR
FOR LAND REFORMS
ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE
OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL
BELTHANGADY TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT - 574 214. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.05.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP 526/2013 (LR-SEC-48A) AND
TO REJECT THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS ON ADMISSION
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful
petitioners challenging the order dated 24.05.2022
passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.526/2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the material available on record.
3. Brief facts as revealed from the records are,
respondent No.4 / landlord had filed W.P.No.526/2013
before this Court challenging the order dated 27.11.2012
passed by respondent No.2/Tribunal granting occupancy
right of the land bearing survey Nos.224/8 and 224/9 of
Malavanthige Village, Belthangady Taluk in favour of the
appellants herein contending that the Tribunal ought not
to have granted occupancy right of the said lands since
the appellants have not made a claim in Form No.7 in
respect of the said lands. The learned Single Judge vide
the order impugned has allowed the writ petition and has
quashed the order passed by the learned Tribunal vide
order dated 27.11.2012 insofar as it relates to the
aforesaid two items of land bearing survey Nos.224/8
and 224/9. Being aggrieved by the same, the present
writ appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits
that though no claim was made in Form No.7 before the
Tribunal, there is an entry in the Form No.7, which would
go to show that the appellants were in peaceful
possession and cultivation of the said lands and
therefore, the Tribunal had rightly granted occupancy
right of the said lands to the appellants. He submits that
the learned Single Judge without appreciating this aspect
of the matter has erred in allowing the writ petition and
quashing the order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it
relates to survey Nos.224/8 and 224/9.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate has
argued in support of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court in
W.P.No.13881/1992 having found that the Tribunal had
granted occupancy right of the land bearing survey
Nos.224/8 and 224/9 in favour of the appellants herein,
has set-aside the order passed by the Tribunal and
remanded the matter to consider the claim afresh. In
paragraph No.6 of the said order, it was observed as
under:-
"6. It is clear from Annexure-A that Respondent
No.3 had not prayed for grant of occupancy right in
respect of survey Nos.224/8 and 224/9. When such
is the case the land tribunal ought not to have
granted occupancy right in respect of survey Nos.
stated above. It is patient illegal to grant occupancy
right which were not sought for. It is also pertinent
to note that the petitioner has filed an application on
the date of hearing on the ground that he was sick
and the application was moved. This application was
rejected for the reasons mentioned in the impugned
order itself. I feel that an opportunity should have
been granted to the petitioner to contest the matter
property opportunity is also given".
7. The learned Single Judge having appreciated
this aspect of the matter has held that the Tribunal would
not have ignored the said order and proceeded to grant
occupancy right of the aforesaid two items of land
bearing survey Nos.224/8 and 224/9 in favour of the
appellants herein. The learned Single Judge also found
that the entry relating to survey Nos.224/8 and 224/9
found in Form No.7 was an endorsement made by the
officials of the land Tribunal and it was not a claim by the
tenant. Further, the learned Single Judge has also taken
into consideration that the ink used in making entry in
respect of land bearing survey Nos.224/8 and 224/9 are
completely different and accordingly has given a finding
that there is no claim made by the appellants for the
aforesaid two survey numbers in the original Form No.7
filed by them. We find no illegality or irregularity in the
said order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, we, decline to entertain this appeal and
therefore the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
