Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rathnamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2022
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 40750 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 40750 OF 2017 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. PUTTASWAMY
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. KUMARASWAMY
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. RENUKAMMA
D/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
5. PUTTAMMA
D/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
6. NUTHAN
D/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
7. VEENA
D/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
8. SUDHA
D/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
NANJAVALLI VILLAGE,
KEREHALLI HOBLI,
-2-
WP No. 40750 of 2017
HOSANAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.NAIK RAMACHANDRA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MS BUILDING,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL HOSANGARA TALUK
TALUK OFFICE BUILDING,
HOSNAGARA CITY,
HOSNAGARA,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
3. VEERABHDRAPPA GOWDA
S/O LATE KANKI KOLLAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
NANJAVALLI VILLAGE,
KEREHALLI HOBLI,
HOSANAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419.
4. SMT HOLIYAMMA
W/O LATE HALAPPA GOWDA,
D/O LATE KANKI KOLLAPPA GOWDA,
RESIDING AT
NANJAVALLI VILLAGE,
KEREHALLI HOBLI,
HOSANAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419.
5. SWAMY GOWDA
S/O LATE KANKI KOLLAPPA GOWDA,
RESIDING AT
NANJAVALLI VILLAGE,
KEREHALLI HOBLI,
-3-
WP No. 40750 of 2017
HOSANAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419.
6. SMT DANAMMA
W/O LATE SWAMY GOWDA,
D/O LATE KANKI KOLLAPPA GOWDA,
RESIDING AT
NANJAVALLI VILLAGE,
KEREHALLI HOBLI,
HOSANAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419.
7. SMT GIRIJAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVAPPA GOWDA,
RESIDING AT
NANJAVALLI VILLAGE,
KEREHALLI HOBLI,
HOSANAGARA TALUK,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577419.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SESHU V. HCGP FOR R1 & R2.,
SRI. H.K. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7
R3 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 24.3.2017 PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS PASSED
BY R-2 AT ANNED-F IN SO FAR SY. NO. 24 IS CONCERNED.
GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND
EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DATED 24.3.2017 PASSED IN
PROCEEDINGS PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEX-F, INSOFAR AS
SY. NO.24 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
WP No. 40750 of 2017
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners who are the legal heirs of Late
Sri.Shivalingappa Gowda are aggrieved by the impugned
order dated 24.03.2017 at Annexure-F, passed by the
Land Tribunal, Hosanagara Taluk.
2. It is not disputed that by order dated 24.04.1979,
occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.6/2
and another extent of 2 acres and 35 guntas of land in
Sy.No.24 both situated at Nanjavalli village, were granted
by the Land Tribunal in favour of Kanki Kollappa Gowda,
who claimed to be the tenant under Late Sri.Shivalingappa
Gowda. However, after a long lapse of nearly 37 years the
impugned order is passed, correcting the measurement or
extent of lands. In Sy.No.24, where 2 acres and 35
guntas of land were granted earlier, now by way of
correction 3 acres 14 guntas are granted. Insofar as in
Sy.No.6 is concerned, 1 acre of land which was earlier
granted was reduced to 36 guntas.
WP No. 40750 of 2017
3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting
respondents placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of NADAKERAPPA AND
OTHERS VS. PILLAMMM AND OTEHRS, reported in AIR
2022 SC 1609. Learned Counsel submits that the Hon'ble
Division Bench noticed that second proviso to sub-
section(6) of Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short),
empowers the Tribunal to correct the extent of land in any
order passed by it either suo motu or on the application of
any of the party. Having noticed the said provision, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was permissible for the
tenant to make an application seeking correction of the
extent of land in the order of the Land Tribunal. It was
also held that most of the tenants are villagers from
remote areas and most of them are illiterate persons and
that the Act is a beneficial legislation. This aspect has to
be kept in mind while deciding cases under the Act. So
saying the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay of 7
WP No. 40750 of 2017
years in filing the application seeking correction of the
extent of land cannot be held to be unreasonable.
4. Having heard the learned Counsels and on
perusing the petition papers this Court finds that on a
plain reading of the second proviso to sub-section (6) of
Section 48 of the Act, it is clear that the Tribunal is vested
with powers to make such correction of the extent of land,
but, after causing actual measurement and after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties. On a
plain reading of the impugned order this Court finds that
the land Tribunal has failed to consider whether such an
application, if any, filed by the contesting respondents
herein, seeking correction after delay of nearly 37 years
could be entertained that too without application seeking
condonation of delay and no such orders being passed
regarding the delay and laches on the part of the
contesting respondents. It is true that the documents on
record would go to show that though the original order of
the Land Tribunal was passed on 24.04.1979,
nevertheless, Form No.10 was not issued, till the
WP No. 40750 of 2017
impugned order was passed on 24.03.2017. Nevertheless,
in the considered opinion of this Court, this aspects had to
be looked into by the Land Tribunal. Opportunity should
have been given to the respondents herein to file such
application regarding the delay and the Land Tribunal was
required to consider such an application before proceeding
to pass an order correcting the extent of land. Moreover,
as provided in the said provision, the Land Tribunal was
required to direct the measurement of the lands and
should seek a report. All these exercise should be
undertaken only in the presence of the parties. Since this
Court finds that all these aspects have not been looked
into by the Land Tribunal, the matter requires
reconsideration at the hands of the Land Tribunal.
5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part.
The impugned order dated 24.03.2017 at Annexure-F,
passed by the Land Tribunal, Hosanagara Taluk is hereby
quashed and set aside. The matter stands remanded back
to the Land Tribunal, Hosanagara Taluk to reconsider the
matter afresh. If the contesting respondents have not
WP No. 40750 of 2017
filed any application seeking condonation of delay, they
shall be permitted to file such an application. The Land
Tribunal should consider such an application, cause the
measurement to be taken in the presence of the parties,
secure a report and thereafter, pass necessary orders
including the condonation of delay. It is only when the
delay is condoned, the Land Tribunal would get jurisdiction
to go into the matter. The entire exercise shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
6. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
