Karnataka High Court
Yallappagouda Kenchanagouda ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 June, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
W.P. No.65966/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.65966/2011 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. YALLAPPAGOUDA KENCHANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DODDAMANGADI, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591126.
2. SRI. VENKANAGOUDA THIPPANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DODDAMANGADI, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591126.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
RAKESH S BY ITS SECRETARY,
HARIHAR
RAKESH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
S Location:
HARIHAR Dharwad M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
Date:
2023.06.12 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
12:54:20
+0530 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
RAMDURG, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591126.
3. SHIVAPPA TAMMANNA BADAGAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
3(A). SRI. IRAPPA SHIVAPPA BADAGAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
-2-
W.P. No.65966/2011
3(A)(1). SMT. SIDAWWA
W/O IRAPPA BADAGAR @ DIVATAGI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3(A)(2). SMT. RENUKA
D/O IRAPPA BADAGAR @ DIVATAGI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3(A)(3). SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O IRAPPA BADAGAR @ DIVATAGI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
3(A)(4). SRI. SANJU
S/O IRAPPA BADAGAR @ DIVATAGI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
3(A)(5). SMT. GANGAVVA
D/O IRAPPA BADAGAR @ DIVATAGI,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3(A)(6). SRI. SHIVAPPA
S/O IRAPPA BADAGAR @ DIVATAGI,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
3(B). SRI. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA BADAGAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS.
3(C). SRI. NINGAPPA S/O SHIVAPPA BADAGAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS.
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NIGAPUR PETH RAMDURG,
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591126.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A S PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3(B&C);
SRI. M H PATIL, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3(A)(1)-R3(A)(6) ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 18-8-2011 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
NAMELY LAND TRIBUNAL RAMDURG UNDER NO.
DODAMANGADI/SR NO.16 VIDE ANNEXURE-N.
THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.06.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
W.P. No.65966/2011
ORDER
1. The landlords have preferred this writ petition
under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India
assailing the order dated 18.08.2011, passed by the 2nd
respondent - Tribunal, vide Annexure-N, wherein
occupancy rights of the lands bearing Sy.No.35/1
measuring 2 acres 19 guntas & Sy.No.35/2 measuring
1 acre 13 guntas situated at Doddamangadi village,
Ramdurga Taluka, Belagavi District has been granted in
favour of the 3rd respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and also perused the material available on record.
3. The 3rd respondent herein had filed Form No.7
claiming occupancy rights of the lands in question under
the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
(for short "the Act of 1961"). The Tribunal, by order
dated 28.11.1975 had rejected the Form No.7 and the
said order was quashed by this Court in W.P.
No.7113/1975 and the matter was remitted to the
W.P. No.65966/2011
Tribunal for fresh consideration of Form No.7. Thereafter,
the Tribunal by order dated 26.02.1981, vide Annexure-J
granted occupancy rights of the lands bearing
Sy.No.35/1, measuring 2 acres 19 guntas & Sy.No.35/2
measuring 27 guntas in favour of the claimants. The said
order was questioned by the petitioners herein in W.P.
No.7016/1981 and this Court allowed the said writ
petition and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration of Form No.7. Thereafter, vide the
impugned order dated 18.08.2011, the Tribunal has
granted occupancy rights of the lands in question in
favour of the 3rd respondent and being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the lands in question are Service Inam
Lands, which was re-granted in favour of the petitioners
in the year 1970 under the provisions of the Karnataka
Village Officers Abolition Act, 1961. He submits that the
claimants were not in possession and cultivation of the
W.P. No.65966/2011
lands in question as on 01.03.1974 and therefore there is
no vesting of the lands in question in favour of the State.
He submits that in the Form No.7, the claimant had
restricted his claim in respect of Sy.No.35/2 only to the
extent of 27 guntas and therefore, the Tribunal was not
justified in granting 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy.No.35/2 in
faovur of the claimants. He also submits that the order
impugned has not been signed by all the Members of the
Tribunal and therefore the same cannot be sustained. In
support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in the case of Vijaya Bank, by
its Chief Manager Vs. the Secretary to the
Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department &
Others reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1481.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
legal representatives of the 3rd respondent submits that
the lands in question were leased to the 3rd respondent
under the registered deed, termed as 'agava lavani'. The
possession and cultivation of the lands in question have
W.P. No.65966/2011
continued with the tenants even after expiry of the lease
period. The petition filed by the landlord for resumption
of the lands in question was dismissed. He submits that
the entries in the revenue records of the lands in
question have continued in the name of the tenants from
the year 1956-57 onwards and continuously upto 1974-
75. He submits that the member, who has not signed the
impugned order had never participated in the enquiry
proceedings, which is evident from the order sheet of the
Land Tribunal and therefore the judgment in the case of
Vijaya Bank, by its Chief Manager (supra), on which
reliance has been placed by the petitioners' counsel
cannot be made applicable to the present case.
6. Learned AGA, who has argued in support of
the impugned order has made available the original
records of the Tribunal for perusal of this Court.
7. The claimant has produced the copies of the
Agava Lavani deeds, which were executed in his favour
under which the lands in question were leased by
W.P. No.65966/2011
receiving advance rent. Though lands in question were
leased under the said deed for a specific period, there is
nothing on record to show that the possession of the
lands in question were taken by the petitioners or
tenants have surrendered the same. Even though the
petitioners have produced an agreement at Annexure-C,
dated 07.09.1969 contending that the tenants have
surrendered the possession of the lands in question, no
reliance can be placed on the said unregistered document
when the execution of the same itself is disputed by the
tenants. The material on record would also go to show
that in the year 1969, the proceedings initiated by the
landlord against the tenants for resumption of the lands
in question was dismissed by the Tribunal. Therefore, it
becomes highly doubtful that the tenants would have
executed the document vide Annexure-C. The revenue
records of the lands in question has continued in the
name of the tenants for the period 1956-57 onwards
continuously upto 1974-75. The landlord has not
challenged the same at any point of time and there is a
W.P. No.65966/2011
presumption available under Section 133 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act regarding possession, which
would be against the landlord.
8. Section 6 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961 provides that Tenancy not to be terminated by
efflux of time. The said section reads as follows:
"6. Tenancy not to be terminated by efflux of
time.- No tenancy of any land shall be terminated
merely on the ground that the period fixed for its
duration whether by agreement or otherwise has
expired.
NOTES
Registered lease deed for five years-Payment
of entire rent in advance recital to deliver
possession after that period-the deed in question is
a lease deed but not a mortgage-Recital regarding
delivery cannot be given effect to in view of Section
6. Gurusiddaiah Vs. LT, 1979 (2) Kar. LJ and ILR
1996 (2) Kar. 1278."
In the case of Gurusidaiah Vs. Land Tribunal reported
in 1979(2) Kar.L.J. 176, this Court has held that if the
lands in question are leased for a specific period, the
W.P. No.65966/2011
recital regarding the delivery cannot be given effect to in
view of Section 6 of the Act, 1961.
9. The entries in the revenue records of the
lands in question have continued in the name of tenants
from the year 1956-57 onwards continuously upto 1974-
75 and there is nothing on record to show that the
possession and cultivation of the lands in question were
taken over by the landlords and on the other hand the
resumption petition filed by the landlord was rejected in
the year 1969. Therefore, in view of Section 44 of the Act
of 1961, all the lands which were held or of which
possession was with the tenants immediately prior to the
date of commencement of the Amendment Act i.e., on
01.03.1974, stand vested with the State Government,
unless the same are specifically exempted and therefore,
there is no requirement of any specific order of vesting to
be passed by any authority.
10. The claimant had filed Form No.7 claiming
occupancy rights of the lands in question. However, from
- 10 -
W.P. No.65966/2011
a perusal of Form No.7, it is seen that he had made a
specific statement that as on the date of filing Form
No.7, he was in possession and cultivation of the land
bearing Sy.No.35/2 only to the extent measuring 27
guntas and in the second round of litigation, the Tribunal
had granted occupancy rights of the lands bearing
Sy.No.35/2 only to the extent of 27 guntas in favour of
the claimant. The claimant had not challenged the said
order and thereby he had accepted the order passed by
the Tribunal. The order dated 26.02.1981, passed by the
Tribunal under which occupancy rights of the lands
bearing Sy.No.35/2 measuring 27 guntas was granted in
favour of the claimant was challenged by the petitioners /
landlord and not the claimant. It is trite that the Tribunal
gets jurisdiction to grant the occupancy rights of the
tenanted agricultural lands only to the extent for which a
claim is made in Form No.7 and not beyond that.
Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal granting
occupancy rights of the lands bearing Sy.No.35/2 to the
extent, it relates to granting of occupancy rights more
- 11 -
W.P. No.65966/2011
than 27 guntas is one without jurisdiction and the same
is not sustainable.
11. The order sheet maintained by the Tribunal
would go to show that Shri Ashok M. Pattan, who was
one of the members of the Tribunal had not at all
participated in the enquiry proceedings throughout.
Though his name is reflected in the impugned order, the
records would reveal that he never participated in the
enquiry proceedings held by the Tribunal and therefore,
it cannot be said that he had heard in the matter. In the
case of Vijaya Bank, by its Chief Manager (supra), the
Division Bench of this Court has clearly stated that, if the
order of the Tribunal is not signed by all the members,
who have heard the matter, the same would be a nullity
and such orders cannot be sustained. Even from the
reading of Rule 17(8) of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Rules, 1974 this aspect of the matter is very clear. Under
the circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned
order, which is not singed by one of the members namely
- 12 -
W.P. No.65966/2011
Shri Ashok M. Pattan is a nullity. The judgment in the
case of Vijaya Bank, by its Chief Manager (supra) is
therefore not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
urged that the lands in question are re-granted to the
father of the petitioners under the Karnataka Village
Officers Abolition Act, 1961 and therefore, Form No.7
filed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the said lands
could not have been entertained by the Tribunal.
13. Section 126 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, reads as follows:
"126. Application of Act to inams.-- For the
removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the
provisions of this Act in so far as they confer any
rights and impose obligations on tenants and
landlords shall be applicable to tenants holding
lands in inam and other alienated villages or lands
1 [(including tenants referred to in section 8 of
the Village Offices' Abolition Act, 1961 but subject
to the provisions of the said Act)]1 and to
- 13 -
W.P. No.65966/2011
landlords and inamdars holding lands in such
villages or lands."
From the reading of the same, it is clear that the Tribunal
is empowered to consider the application seeking
occupancy rights of the lands even in respect of the
service Inam lands.
14. The order passed by the Tribunal is well
reasoned and sound and the Tribunal has taken into
consideration all the oral and documentary evidence
available on record and thereafter passed the impugned
order. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the
parties are before this Court in the third round of
litigation and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which
is a fact finding authority, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, therefore the
same cannot be interfered by this Court unless the said
finding are found to be patently illegal or perverse in
nature. Under the circumstance, I proceed to pass the
following:
- 14 -
W.P. No.65966/2011
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 18.08.2011,
passed by the 2nd respondent - Tribunal,
vide Annexure-N granting occupancy
rights of the lands in dispute namely
Sy.No.35/1 measuring 2 acres 19 guntas
& Sy.No.35/2 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas
situated at Doddamangadi village,
Ramdurga Taluka, Belagavi District is
quashed only to the extent it relates to
granting of occupancy rights of the lands
guntas.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp* / Ct: BCK
