Sri Chikkachowdappa vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 2454 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                     WA No.2102 of 2017




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                         DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2023
                                       PRESENT
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                          AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                            WRIT APPEAL NO.2102 OF 2017 (LR)
               BETWEEN:

               1.   SRI. CHIKKACHOWDAPPA
                    S/O NARAYANAPPA
                    AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
Digitally
                    R/AT MARKANDAPURA
signed by           KOLAR TLAUK
RUPA V              KOLARA DISTRICT-563 130.
Location:                                                  ...APPELLANT
High Court
of Karnataka   (BY SRI. Y.R. SADHASIVA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
                   SRI. N. BAYYA REDDY, ADV.,)

               AND:

               1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
                      M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
                      BENGALURU-560 001.

               2.     THE LAND TRIBUNAL KOLAR
                      KOLAR DISTRICT
                      RERPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                      KOLAR-563130.

               3.     SRI. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH
                      @ CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT
                      DEAD BY HIS LRS.

               3(a) SRI. SOMASHEKAR DIXIT
                    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                            -2-
                                       WA No.2102 of 2017




       S/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH @
       CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT.

3(b) SRI. RAVISHANKAR DIXIT
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
     S/O SRI.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH @
     CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT.

3(c)   SRI. GOURISHANKAR DIXIT
       AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
       S/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH @
       CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT.

3(d) SRI. SHIVAKUMAR DIXIT
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
     S/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH @
     CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT.

3(e) SRI. NAGABHUSHAN DIXIT
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     S/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH @
     CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT.

3(f)   SMT. MANJULA
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
       D/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH @
       CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT.

       ALL ARE R/AT FORT, KOLAR TOWN
       KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1 & R2
    SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADV., FOR R3 (a & d)
R3(b), R3(c), R3(e) & R3(f) SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 25493/2004 DATED
13.02.2017.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                            -3-
                                      WA No.2102 of 2017




                      JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal arises from an order dated

13.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by original petitioner /

deceased respondent No.3 in the appeal, has been

allowed and the order dated 13.02.2004 passed by the

Land Tribunal has been set aside.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the appellant claimed to be in possession

of land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 2 acres and 3 guntas

situated at Markandapura Village, Kolar Taluk. It is the

case of the appellant that the aforesaid land was

Shanbhog Inamathi land. It is the further case of the

appellant that the father of the deceased respondent

No.3 was holding the village office of Shanbhog for 7

villages including Markandepura village during his

lifetime who expired in 1962. Thereafter, deceased

respondent No.3 held the office of Shanbhog till the

Village Offices Abolition Act came into force. However,

WA No.2102 of 2017

appellant filed an application seeking occupancy rights

on the ground that he is the tenant in respect of the

schedule land. The Tribunal, by an order dated

10.08.1981, granted occupancy rights in his favour.

The order was challenged in a writ petition. The order

passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the

matter was remitted for a fresh consideration to the

Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal again granted

occupancy rights in favour of appellant which was

subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.8916/1984 and

the order passed by the Land Tribunal was once again

set aside and remitted back to the Land Tribunal. The

Tribunal thereafter once again granted occupancy rights

in respect of appellant. The same was again challenged

in W.P.No.16837/1992 which was decided and the

matter was once again remitted to the Land Tribunal for

fresh consideration. While deciding the aforesaid writ

petition, a learned Judge of this Court directed the

appellant herein to produce the aforesaid lease deed

WA No.2102 of 2017

dated 12.07.1957 on the basis of which, his claim for

occupancy rights was found. The Tribunal, by an order

dated 13.02.2004, granted occupancy rights in favour of

appellant. Order dated 13.02.2004 passed by the Land

Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of

appellant was subject matter of challenge in a writ

petition. The said writ petition has been allowed and

the order dated 13.02.2004 has been quashed by the

learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant

submitted that the writ petition preferred by the

respondent No.3 could not have been allowed merely on

the basis of a discrepancy in the sale deed dated

12.07.1957. It is further submitted that the learned

Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter for fresh

consideration to the Land Tribunal. On the other hand,

learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3(a) to (f) has

supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

WA No.2102 of 2017

4. We have considered the rival submissions made

on both sides and have perused the record. An

application seeking occupancy rights under the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is required to be

proved showing that the applicant was in cultivating

possession on or before 01.03.1974. In the instant

case, the appellant is relying on the copy of lease deed

executed on 12.07.1957. The aforesaid lease deed

contains a stipulation that the land in question has

been leased out to the appellant for a period of 5 years

and on expiry of the aforesaid 5 years, the appellant

shall handover the possession of the land only after

1968. Thereafter, for a period from 1968 onwards till

1974-75, there is no endorsement to show that the

appellant had paid rent to deceased respondent No.3 in

respect of the land in question. Besides that, there is

no material on record including the revenue records to

show that the appellant was in cultivating possession of

the land prior to 1974. In the absence of any material

WA No.2102 of 2017

on record including the revenue records to show that

the appellant was in cultivating possession on or before

01.03.1974, the Land Tribunal erred in granting claim

of the appellant for occupancy rights. The aforesaid

order has rightly been set aside by the learned Single

Judge.

5. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by

the learned Single Judge.

In the result, appeals fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Consequently, pending interlocutory application is

also dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV