Karnataka High Court
Smt. Koyinabai W/O. Gopal Devakhate vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688
WP No. 60547 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 60547 OF 2012 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KOYINABAI
W/O GOPAL DEVAKHATE,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NANDIKURULI VILLAGE,
KEMPATTI HEMLET, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SURABHI KULKARNI., AND
SRI.CHETAN MUNNOLI., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed by M.S.BUILDING,
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELGUAM.
3. SRI. PUSHPENDRASING
S/O APPASAHEB NIMBALKAR DESAI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S,
3(a) SMT. KUSUMA
D/O PUSHPENDRASING NIMBALKAR DESAI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688
WP No. 60547 of 2012
R/O. NANADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
4. SMT. KALLAVVA URF RATNABAI
W/O. MALLAPPA SADALAGI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BENADI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI-591 210.
DIST: BELGAUM.
5. SMT. AKKATHAI
W/O. BALU KARUNI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KAMATANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: HUKKERI-591 317,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI.RAJANANDA LATKAN., ADVOCATE
FOR R4 AND R5 [ABSENT])
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP. THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni., learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri.Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath., learned AGA for respondents
1 and 2 have appeared in person.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688
There is no representation on behalf of respondents 4 and
5, either personally or through video conferencing.
2. The notice to the third respondent was ordered on
06.12.2012. A perusal of the office note depicts that the third
respondent is served and unrepresented. She has neither
engaged the services of an Advocate nor conducted the case as
a party in person.
3. The order dated: 18.08.2011 passed by the Land
Tribunal, Raibag in £ÀA.nJ£ï¹/J¸ïDgï/32+747/£ÀA¢PÀÄgÀĽ vide
Annexure-A is called into question in this Writ Petition on
several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties urged
several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of
the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost
care.
5. The short point that requires consideration is,
whether the order of the Land Tribunal requires interference.
6. Suffice it to note that one Appaiah Rama Naik was a
permanent tenant of a land-bearing Sy.No.86/1, measuring to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688
an extent of 09 Acres and 10 Guntas situated at Nandikuruli
Village. The petitioner contends that Appaiah Rama Naik
executed a Will in her favor on the 10th day of August 1990.
Thus, she has become the absolute owner of the said land.
Based on the Will, Smt.Koyinabai filed a suit on the file of Addl.
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Gokak in O.S.No.26/1996 seeking a
declaration that she is the absolute owner of land bearing
Sy.No.86/1 situated at Nandikuruli Village. The Trial Court vide
Judgment dated: 20th day of June 2006 decreed the suit.
Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the legal
representatives of Appaiah Rama Naik preferred an appeal in
R.F.A No.54/2007. This Court while disposing of the appeal
observed that the plaintiff is not the heir of deceased Appaiah
Rama Naik and placing reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in SANGAPPA KALYANAPPA BANGI VS. LAND
TRIBUNAL, JAMKHANDI & OTHERS reported in ILR 1999
KAR 863 (SC) held that the petitioner does not come within
the ambit of the heirs under the provisions of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act nor she become descendant of Appaiah or
related to deceased Appaiah as legitimate legacy. Therefore,
the Court held that she is not entitled to claim a declaration on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688
the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by Appaiah
Rama Naik. Accordingly, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial
Court was set-aside vide judgment dated 05th day of July 2007.
Counsel Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni., in presenting her
arguments strenuously urged that the High Court while
disposing of the case has observed that the plaintiff is in
possession of the property, hence she cannot be dispossessed
without due course of law. She argued by saying that the
Tribunal had overlooked this and erroneously rejected her
claim.
The issue revolves around the rejection of the claim about
the grant of occupancy rights. As already noted above, the
petitioner based her claim over the land in question based on
the Will. In the Regular First Appeal, this Court held that the
petitioner is not an heir under the provisions of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act and she is not a descendant of Appaiah Rama
Naik. Hence, it is noticeably clear that she is not an heir and
descendant of Appaiah Rama Naik. Therefore, it is hard to say
that she had the land in question as of 01.03.1974. On the
contrary, Appaiah Rama Naik was in possession of the land in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10688
question as of the relevant date, hence, it can be safely
concluded that the Land Tribunal is justified in concluding that
the legal representatives of deceased Appaiah Rama Naik are
entitled to grant of occupancy rights. I find no reason to
interfere with the order of the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the
Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
