Karnataka High Court
Shivanagowda Patil vs The Land Tribunal on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No.179 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.179 OF 2021 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAGOWDA PATIL
A/S OF BASVANAGOWDA
DEAD BY LR'S.
1. SMT. SHANKARAMMA
D/O SHIVANAGOWDA
Digitally AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
signed by
RUPA V
2. GADIGEMMA
Location: High D/O SHIVANAGOWDA
Court of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
3. GIRIJAMMA
D/O SHIVANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
4. RATHNAMMA
D/O SHIVANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
5. GADIGEPPA GOWDA
S/O SHIVANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/O THORAVANDA VILLAGE
SORABA TALUK - 577429
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANKALKOTE RAJENDRA SHANTAPPA, ADV.,)
-2-
WA No.179 of 2021
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
SORABA TALUK
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
SORBA TALUK- 577429
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.
3. K V LINGARAJ
S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
4. K V BASAVARAJA
SINCE DECEASED
S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA
REP. BY HIS WIDOW SHASHIKALA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
5. K V RAJASHEKARAPPA
S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
6. KUMARASWAMY
S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REPBY HIS
WIDOW VINODHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
SERIAL NO.3 TO 6 ARE
R/O THORAVANDA VILLAGE
ANAVATTI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK - 577429
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. HCGP FOR R1 & R2
SRI. K. SREEDHAN, ADV., FOR R4-R6 (ABSENT)
V/O DTD:03.01.2023 APPEAL AGAINST R3 IS DISMISSED)
-3-
WA No.179 of 2021
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP 37850/2003 (LR) DATED 13/12/2007
CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
DATED 07/08/2003. ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal has been filed against an
order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the learned Single
Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the
respondent Nos.3 to 6 has been allowed and the Land
Tribunal has been directed to confer the occupancy
rights in respect of land in question.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that respondent Nos.3 to 6 claim to be in
possession of the land bearing Sy.Nos.164 and 190 at
Thoravanda Village, Soraba Taluk, Shivamogga District
as tenants in pursuance of registered document of
chalageni dated 01.03.1940. After the death of father of
WA No.179 of 2021
respondent Nos.3 to 6, the respondent Nos.3 to 6
continued in possession of the land in question as
tenants. The father of appellant No.3 and his father had
instituted the proceeding before the Tahsildar seeking
possession of the land after expiry of term of original
lease deed. The Tahsildar allowed the aforesaid
application. The respondent Nos.3 to 6 thereupon
challenged the order passed by the Tahsildar before the
Assistant Commissioner who allowed the appeal. The
order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged
before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy
Commissioner rejected the appeal and the order passed
by the Deputy Commissioner was affirmed by the
Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The orders passed by the
Revenue Appellate Tribunal as well as the Deputy
Commissioner was upheld in a writ petition by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.1449/1973. The aforesaid order passed in the
writ petition was upheld in the special leave petition
WA No.179 of 2021
which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on
13.02.1991. Thus, the issue relating to title of the
father of appellants in respect of land in question, stood
concluded against him.
3. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 initiated
the proceeding by filing Form No.7 seeking occupancy
rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
The Land Tribunal, by an order dated 07.08.2003 held
that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 are not entitled to grant
of occupancy rights. The aforesaid order was challenged
by the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in a writ petition. The
learned Single Judge, by an order dated 13.12.2007,
has allowed the aforesaid writ petition and has directed
the Land Tribunal to confer occupancy rights. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been
filed.
WA No.179 of 2021
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in allowing
the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 6 and
in not appreciating that respondent Nos.3 to 6 had not
filed any document to show that they were in possession
of the land in question.
5. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides and have perused the record. The father of
the respondent Nos.3 to 6 was in occupation of the
lands in question on the basis of registered document of
chalageni dated 01.03.1940. After the death of the
father, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 have continued to be
in possession of the lands in question as tenants. The
learned Single Judge, on the basis of the lease deed
executed in favour of the respondent Nos.3 to 6, has
recorded a finding that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 were
in cultivating possession of the land in question as on
01.03.1974. Therefore, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 have
WA No.179 of 2021
been held to be entitled for grant of occupancy rights.
The aforesaid findings is based on meticulous
appreciation of evidence on record and has not assailed
as perverse on behalf of the appellants.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
