Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ramappa S/O Bheemappa Jagad vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
WP NO.103033 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETTION NO.103033 OF 2018 (LR)
Between:
Ramappa
Since deceased by is LRs
1. Sri Manappa
S/o Balappa Jagad
Age 58 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Girisagar
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
2. Smt. Yamanawwa
W/o Huchappa Pujari
Age 61 years
Occ: Household
R/o Girisagar
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
3. Smt. Yallawwa
W/o Bheemappa Haladur
Age 56 years
Occ: Household
R/o Bilagi
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
4. Smt. Sushila
2
WP NO.103033 OF 2018
W/o Sidramappa Dalawai
Age 54 years
Occ: Household
R/o Girisagar
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
5. Smt. Beemawwa
W/o Dyamanna Halabar
Age 51 years
Occ: Household
R/o Girisagar
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
6. Sri Ramappa
S/o Balappa Jagad
Age 56 years
Occ: Household
R/o Girisagar
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
Petitioners 2 to6 are represented by their GPA Holder
Petitioner No.1
...Petitioners
(by Sri Y.R. Jogi, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary
Revenue Department
M S Building
Bengaluru 560 001
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Bagalkot
3
WP NO.103033 OF 2018
District: Bagalkot - 587 101
3. The Assistant Commissioner
Jamkhandi
Taluk: Jamkhandi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
4. The Tahsildar
Bilagi
Taluk Bilagi
District Bagalkot 587 101
5. The Deputy Tahsildar
Anganwadi
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
6. The Revenue Inspector
Angawadi
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
7. The Village Accountant
Girisagar Village
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
8. Huchappa
S/o Hanamappa Pujari
Age 70 years
Occ: Agriculture
Girisagar Village
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
9. Sabanna
S/o Laxman Jagad
Age 56 years
Occ: Agriculture
4
WP NO.103033 OF 2018
Girisagar Village
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
10. Shanmuk
S/o LaxmanJagad
Age 55 years
Occ: Agriculture
Girisagar Village
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
11. Smt. Rukmawwa
W/o Shreeshail Dalawai
Age 51 years
Occ: Household
R/o Bilagi
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
12. Beemappa
S/o Laxman Jagad
Age 61 years
Occ: Agriculture
Girisagar Village
Taluk: Bilagi
District: Bagalkot 587 101
...Respondents
(by Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, AGA for R1 to R6;
R7 to R12 served)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order of Land Tribunal,
Bilagi dated 15.06.1977 only concerned to petitioner No.3 in
land Tribunal Bilagi as per Annexure-E by issuing writ of
certiorari; and etc.
5
WP NO.103033 OF 2018
In this writ petition, arguments being heard, judgment
reserved, coming on for "pronouncement of orders", this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the
order dated 15th July, 1977, passed by the Land Tribunal, Bilagi,
in respect of the land granted in favour of the Claimant no.3
therein-Huchappa S/o Hanamappa Pujari.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, land bearing
Survey No.100 of Girisagara village, Bilagi Taluk, Vijayapura
District was cultivated by Satayya S/o Siddalingaiah Suragimath
and Bheemappa S/o Lakshmappa Jagad. The landlord is
Madhwa Nayak S/o Ramachandra Nayak Jorapur. Pursuant to
the death of Bheemappa Lakshmappa Jagad, his two sons, viz.
Balappa Bheemappa Jagad and Ramappa Bheemappa Jagad
were cultivating the land along with the original cultivator-
Satayya. It is stated that Huchappa s/o Hanamappa Pujari
(respondent No.8), married Yamanavva (sister of the petitioner
No.1) and deserted the said Yamanavva and has not taken care
of the needs Yamanavva. It is further stated that after the death
WP NO.103033 OF 2018
of Ramappa Bheemappa Jagad, the said Huchappa entered his
name in the revenue records as tenant, along with the names of
father of the petitioners herein and Satayya. It is contended
that the said Ramappa Bheemappa Jagad died on 17th February,
1965. By suppressing the aforementioned facts, so also, as the
said Huchhappa had not attained majority at the relevant point
of time, the impugned order was passed by the Land Tribunal,
Bilagi and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri Y.R. Jogi, learned counsel for the
petitioners; and Sri Vinayak Kulkarni, learned Additional
Government Advocate, for the respondent-State.
4. Sri Y.R. Jogi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the grant of occupancy right
insofar as respondent No.8, contended that the respondent no.8
has committed fraud on the Land Tribunal, Bilagi and therefore,
sought for interference of this Court. He further contended that
the deceased Ramappa Bheemappa Jagad was cultivating the
land during 1963-64 and 1964-65 and the said aspect has not
WP NO.103033 OF 2018
been considered by the Land Tribunal and accordingly, sought
for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent-State contended that the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches.
6. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the main grievance of the
petitioners is that the grant of occupancy rights in respect of
respondent No.8 is incorrect and accordingly, sought for
cancellation of Form No.7 filed by the said Huchappa. In this
regard, perusal of the impugned order passed by the land
Tribunal, (Annexure-E), would indicate that the respondent No.8,
along with Satayya and Balappa Bheemappa Jagad (father of the
petitioners) have filed Form No.7 along with the relevant
mutation entries to establish the fact that they were cultivating
the land belonging to Madhwa Nayak. The Land Tribunal, after
considering the relevant documents on record, arrived at the
conclusion that claimants are in cultivation of the land on the
WP NO.103033 OF 2018
relevant date as per Section 44-A of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 and in that view of the matter, I do not find
any material illegality in the impugned order. That apart,
perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the land was
granted in favour of the respondent No.8 on 15th June, 1977,
and the writ petition is filed in the year 2018 and there is
inordinate of 41 years in challenging the impugned order passed
by the Land Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner contended that fraud has been committed by
respondent No.8, however there is no material is placed on
record to prove the alleged fraud as contended by the petitioners
herein against the respondent No.8 and in that view of the
matter, writ petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
lnn
