Karnataka High Court
Smt. Isamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33706-DB
WA No. 608 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2023 (LR-SEC 48)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ISAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2. SRI. ISUBU,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
3. SRI. ABUBKAR,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
4. SRI. MOHAMMAD,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by SHARADA 5. SRI. SULAIMAN,
VANI B AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 6. SRI. SARAMMA,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
ALL ARE CHILDREN OF
LATE SRI MOIDEEN KUNHI,
R/AT MONNAPUR HOUSE,
KEDAMBADY BEEDUBAIL,
POST KEDAMBADY,
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K DISTRICT-574 201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33706-DB
WA No. 608 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT(LR),
M.S BUILDING,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
PUTTUR TALUK, PUTTUR,
D.K DISTRICT- 574 201.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. SMT LAKSHMI BALLAL
W/O SRI KRISHNAYYA BALLAL,
"SRI GANESHA NILAYA"
MUKRAMPADY, PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K DISTRICT- 574 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR., ADDL.GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R1 & 2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER, DATED 01.06.2022 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No. 9333 OF 2013 AMD
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANTS IN WP No. 9333 OF 2013 AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:33706-DB
WA No. 608 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal calls in question a learned
Single Judge's order dated 01.06.2022 whereby,
W.P.No.9333/2013 (LR-Sec.48A) has been dismissed. In
the said writ petition the appellants had made a challenge
to the Land Tribunal order which rejected their application
in Form No.7 for the grant of occupancy in respect of the
subject land although it found that their father-
Mr.Moideen Kunhi was the occupant of the house in
question.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that
there is an admission made by the owners of the land in
their cross-examination as to the subject land being
cultivated by the father of his clients as on 01.03.1974
that is the appointed day; there is other evidentiary
material that supports their claim for the grant of
occupancy. All this was not considered by the Land
Tribunal and the same mistake was committed by the
NC: 2023:KHC:33706-DB
WA No. 608 of 2023
learned Single Judge. So arguing, he seeks for allowing of
the writ appeal. Learned Additional Government Advocate
on request appearing for the Land Tribunal opposes the
appeal making submission in justification of the order of
the Land Tribunal and the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with reasoning
of the learned Single Judge who has upheld the views of
the Land Tribunal as to Mr.Moideen Kunhi not being in the
occupation of the subject land as a tenant in cultivated
land as on 01.03.1974. The submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants that the members of
the Land Tribunal had visited the spot and collected the
evidence that Mr.Moideen Kunhi was in the occupation of
the land is not supported by the records. In fact, in the
cross-examination of the owner of the land nothing worth
NC: 2023:KHC:33706-DB
WA No. 608 of 2023
mentioning has come out to support the claim for grant of
occupancy.
4. There is yet an another reason as to why we do
not want to interfere in the order of the learned Single
Judge: Land Tribunal is constituted under the provisions of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 which comprises of
the members and the Chairman happens to be the
Assistant Commissioner, who will have accumulated
experience in matters of the kind. After considering entire
material, the Tribunal has declined grant of occupancy in
respect of subject land. On being challenged, the order of
the Tribunal came to be upheld by the learned Single
Judge. This is only an intra court appeal which has its own
limitations, which the learned writ Judge obviously had. In
other words, the focal point of writ court is the decision
making process and not the decision itself vide Sushil
Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2022) 3 SCC 203.
NC: 2023:KHC:33706-DB
WA No. 608 of 2023
In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid
of merits is liable to be and accordingly is rejected
in limine.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
