Karnataka High Court
Sanna Gangammanavara Kotrappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETTION NO.14530 OF 2007 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA KOTRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LS
S.G. NAGAPPA S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARAKOTRAPPA,
AGED 48 YEARS
2. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA
KOTRAPPA
AGED 56 YEARS
3. CHANNABASAPPA S/O SANNA GANGAMMNAVARA
KOTRAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
4. POMPANNA S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA KOTRAPPA
AGED 46 YEARS
5. S G KOTRESH S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA KOTRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
5.A S.G.AKKAMMA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD
5.B S.G.KARIYAMMA
AGE: 10 YEARS, MINOR
S.G.KOTRAMMA
AGE: 9 YEARS, MINOR
5.C S.G.KOTRAMA
AGE: 9 YEARS, MINOR
2
5.D S.G.KAVEERI
AGE: 7 YEARS, MINOR,
5.E S.G.KARTIK,
AGE: 3 YEARS, MINOR
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN MOTHER
S.G.AKKAMMA, AGE 40 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O. TALAKAL VILLAGE,
TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BELLARI
6.00 . VIRUPAKSHA S/O SANNA GANGAMMANAVARA KOTRAPPA
AGED 38 YEARSALL ARE R/AT THALAKAL
VILLAGEHADAGALI TALUKBELLARY DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT SRI S.V.PTAIL AND NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPT.
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE-2
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
HADAGALIBELLARY DISTRICT
3. H M KOTRABASAIAH S/O DODDA KOTRAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
3.A H.M.MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O LATE H.M.KOTRABASIAH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O TALAKAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT:BELLARY
3.B H.M. SHANKARASWAMY S/O LATE H.M.KOTRABASAIAH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TALAKAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
3
DISTRICT:BELLARY
3.C H.M. PRAKASH S/O LATE H.M.KOTRABASAIAH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O TALAKAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT:BELLARY
3.D CHANNAMMA W/O LATE KOTRASWAMY H.M.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O TALAKAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DISTRICT:BELLARY
3.E RATNAMMA,
W/O VEERAIAH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O HONAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: KOPPAL,
DIST: BELLARY
3.F KADAMMA W/O H.M.MARALUSIDDAIAH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. HANSIHEGDAL VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI,
DIST: BELLARY
3.G SHAMBAKKA W/O KUDALLAYYA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. BUDANOOR VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST:BELLARY
3.H SUMANGALAMA W/O CHANDRAIAH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O UTTANGI VILLAGE, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST: BELLARY
4. SHEKARAIAH S/O HIREMATHADA GURUBASAVAIAH
AGED 50 YEARS, R/O: K.KODAHALLI VILLAGE,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT
5. LOKAMMA D/O HIREMATHADA GURUBASAVAIAH
4
AGED 46 YEARSR/O KENCHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
HADAGALI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT
6. SRI JAGADGURU GAVISIDDESWAR
MAHASWAMIGALU, GAVISIDDESWAR MATH,
KOPPAL, KOPPAL DIST:583 231.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A-G), R4 AND R5
SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R6
R3 ABATED
V/O DATED 02.11.2022 R3(H) DELETED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 28.08.2007,
PRODUCED HEREIWITH ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
IN THIS WRIT PETITION, ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the order dated
28.08.2007 passed by 2nd respondent-Tribunal (Annexure- J),
dismissing the claim made by the petitioners-tenants.
2. Relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition
as contended by the petitioners are that the land bearing Sy
No.252/B, measuring 7.41 acres of Talakallu village, Hadagali
Taluk, Bellary District is belong to one Sri Gurusiddeshwara
Mutt, managed by Sri Niranjana Jagadgurugalu,
Marishantaveera Swamigalu, Koppalla. It is further stated
that, the petitioners are the legal representatives of one late
Sanna Gangammanavar Kotrappa, (hereinafter referred to as
tenant) who was cultivating the aforementioned land since
1956 as a tenant. The said tenant filed Form No.7 under the
provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') seeking occupancy rights.
3. The petitioners pleaded that, the respondents-
H.M.Kotrabasaiah, and late Hirematada Gurubasavaiah,
(father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5), said to have purchased
the schedule land from the aforementioned Mutt on
09.01.1960 under the registered Sale Deed and they claim to
be the owners of the land. The said Sale Deed was
challenged by the tenant as illegal on the ground that the
first option of purchase was not given to him by the Mutt as
per the provisions of the then Mysore Tenancy Act. The said
claim made by the tenant, was rejected by the Tahasildar,
which came to be confirmed in an appeal by the Assistant
Commissioner, Hospet. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
said tenant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner,
Bellary and the appeal came to be allowed on 22.04.1967.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondents have filed
Revision before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal in RA No.131
of 1967, which came to be dismissed by order dated
10.07.1967 (Annexure-B). The said order of the Revision
Appellate Tribunal was challenged before this Court in WP
No.199/1970 and this Court set aside the impugned order
therein and remanded the matter to the Tahalsidar Hadagali
for fresh consideration (Annexure-C). In the meanwhile, the
said tenant filed Form No.7 on 30.12.1974. The Land
Tribunal, Hadagali, after making detailed enquiry, granted
occupancy rights in favour of the tenant by its order dated
16.12.1978. It is also narrated in the writ petition that the
contesting respondents have filed suit in OS No.905 of 1961
before the Munsif and JMFC, Hospet. The said suit was
transferred to competent court at Hadagali, and renumbered
as OS No.5 of 1964. The suit is filed by the contesting
respondents seeking relief of declaration of title, with
consequential relief of possession. The above suit is pending
consideration before the Trial court. It is also stated that,
after remand by this Court, the Land Tribunal after enquiry,
by its majority rejected the occupancy rights to the tenant,
however, the Chairman/President of the Land Tribunal
ordered for granting of occupancy rights in favour of late
Sanna Gangammanavar Kotrappa, by order dated
03.02.1988 (Annexure-G). The petitioners feeling aggrieved
by the same, have filed appeal in LRAA No.213 of 1988 and
same was converted into WP No.2250 of 1997. This court,
after considering the material on record by its order dated
18.04.2006 remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh
consideration. Again, the Land Tribunal after considering the
case on merits, by its order dated 28.08.2007, (Annexure-J)
rejected the claim made by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved
by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ
petition.
4. I have heard Sri Nandish Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners; Sri Vinayak S.Kulkarni, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1
and 2; Sri Dinesh M.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents 3(a-g) and 4 and 5; Sri Srinand A
Pahhapure, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.6.
5. Sri Nandish Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners contended that the finding recorded by the
Land Tribunal that the petitioners have not produced the
cogent material to prove the tenancy is not correct. The
majority members of the Tribunal failed to appreciate that
the legal representatives of the 1st respondent have not filed
Form No.7 and they have not claimed tenancy in respect of
the subject land. He further contended that it is the duty of
the tenant to prove that he was cultivating the land as a
tenant on 01.03.1974 in this regard, sufficient material was
placed. He further contended that, the 1st respondent, who
claims to be the purchaser of the land on 09.01.1960 from
the Mutt is incorrect as the Sanna Gangammanavar Kotrappa
was a tenant of the land under the Koppal Mutt even before
1956, and therefore, Section 22 and 28 of the Mysore
Tenancy Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as an Act, 1952),
is applicable to the case on hand and therefore, the tenant is
having priority and to be given first option to purchase the
land leased to him and in that view of the matter, he sought
for interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the
contesting respondents sought to justify the impugned order.
It is the categorically argued by the learned counsel for the
respondents that at no point of time land was tenanted and
no records have been produced before the Tribunal by the
petitioners to demonstrate that, the petitioners are the
tenants under the Act. It is contended by the contesting
respondents that, the 1st respondent has purchased the land
in question and therefore, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents sought to justify the impugned order.
7. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination
of writ papers would indicate that the petitioners claim to be
tenants under the erstwhile owners. The contesting
respondents said to have been purchased the suit schedule
property on 25.01.1960. In order to apply the Act to the facts
of the case, it is the noted that, the petitioners have to first
establish before the Land Tribunal that they are tenants
under the provisions of the said Act. Though it is argued by
the petitioners that the petitioners have filed Form No.7
before the Land Tribunal on 13.12.1975 claiming occupancy
rights and in this regard, the petitioners ought to have
substantiated through evidence that land was no longer in
the ownership of Sri Gurusiddeshwara Mutt and vested with
the State Government. Perusal of the finding recorded by the
Land Tribunal would indicate that the contesting respondents
though purchased the land in question, were not in
possession of the land and as such, approached the Civil
Court in OS No.905 of 1961 and OS No.5 of 1964 seeking
declaration of the title and consequential relief of possession.
Undisputedly, suit is filed during 1961 and therefore, it
cannot be inferred that the petitioners were tenants of the
Mutt and pursuant to the execution of Sale Deed, the
contesting respondents said to have been the owners of the
land. No document has been produced by the petitioners like
leasehold payments have been made to erstwhile owners of
the land i.e. Gurusiddeshwara Mutt nor to the contesting
respondents herein. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the
finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioners were in
unauthorized occupation of the land in question and cannot
be considered as a tenant under the provisions of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act and therefore, there is no
illegality in the impugned order and same is just and proper.
8. Nextly, insofar arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners with regard to
Section 22 and 28 of the Act, 1952, is concerned, the said
provision provides for benefit to the tenants and the land
owners shall provide an opportunity of first sale in favour of
the tenant. In this regard as the petitioners have failed to
adduce any evidence before the Land Tribunal that rent is
being paid to the landlord (erstwhile owner-Mutt) as the land
has been tenanted and nothing is produced through cogent
evidence to establish their right over the property in question
as a tenant and that apart, no independent witnesses have
been examined to prove that they were in cultivation of the
land under tenancy and in that view of the matter, I am of
the opinion that, recourse to provisions under Mysore
tenancy Act, 1952, cannot be accepted. Taking into
consideration the factual aspects on record that the Land
Tribunal has taken note of the finding recorded by this Court
in Writ Petition No.2250 of 1997 and the factual aspects on
record including the relevant provisions under the Act as well
as Karnataka Land Reforms Act, rightly arrived at a
conclusion that the petitioners have failed to establish that
they are in cultivation of the land under the Land Reforms Act
and therefore, I am of the opinion that, the majority
members were justified in arriving at a conclusion to reject
the Form No.7, filed by the petitioners. In the result, the writ
petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
