Karnataka High Court
Sri.K Nanjappa Since Dead By Lrs vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
WA No. 301 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2014 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI.K. NANJAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's
1. SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O LATE K. NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING AT KALLIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
2. SRI. K.S. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE K. NANJAPPA
Digitally signed
by SHARADA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
VANI B AGRICULTURIST
Location: HIGH RESIDING AT KALLIPURA VILLAGE
COURT OF KASABA HOBLI
KARNATAKA
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
3. SRI. SHIVANNA
S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING AT KALLIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT -563 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
WA No. 301 of 2014
4. SRI. BASAPPA
S/O LATE MUNINANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING AT KALLIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.L.M.RAMAIAH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU -560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's
SMT. AKKALLAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LR's
3.(a) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/T URAGAM PETE VILLAGE AND POST
PATEL STREET
BANGARPETE TALUK - 563 121.
3.(b) SRI.K. VENKATESH
S/O. LATE N. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHILLANGERE VILLAGE
HOTHURU HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK - 563 103.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
WA No. 301 of 2014
3(c) SMT. K. PADMA
W/O. K. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.34/3
DOOPANAHALLI
INDIRANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 038.
3(d) SRI. K. NAGARAJA
S/O. LATE N. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHILLANGERE VILLAGE
HOTHURU HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK-563 103.
3(e) SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT ANCHARAHALLI VILLAGE
MANDURU POST
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 049.
3(f) SRI. SRINIVASA
LATE N. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT TEACHERS COLONY
KING WEIGH BRIDGE
BESIDE BYPASS
MULABAGILU-563 131.
3(g) SMT. RENUKAMMA
W/O MUNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT PULAPEPALLI VILLAGE
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI POST
THAYALURU HOBLI
MULABAGILU - 563 131.
4. SRI. DODDATHAMMANNA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
WA No. 301 of 2014
4(a) SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE DODDATHAMMANNA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT SHILLANGERE VILLAGE & POST
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT 563 101.
5. SRI. CHIKKA CHANNANJAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
5(a) SRI. GURUDEV S/O G. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
COFFEE PLANTER
RESIDING AT CHIKKAMAGALUR
CHIKKAMAGALUR -577 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.S.ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 ;
SRI. H V DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3(A-G) AND R4;
SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, ADV.FOR R5 (ABSENT))
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 NO.26331/2005 DATED 20/2/2013.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra - Court Appeal seeks to lay a challenge to
a learned Single Judge's order dated 20/2/2013 whereby
their W.P.No.26331/2005 (LR) laying a challenge to the
land Tribunal orders dated 20.11.1980 & 20.02.1981
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
whereby occupancy in respect of certain lands have been
registered in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
2. After service of notice, first Respondent - State
and second Respondent - land Tribunal are represented by
learned HCGP; the contesting Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are
represented by their counsel. The advocate appearing for
Respondent No.5 who happens to be the landlord of the
subject lands is absent.
3. BREIF FACT MATRIX OF THE CASE:
a) In all, there are seven pieces of agricultural
lands in several survey numbers of Shillanagere Village in
Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluka. They were owned by the fifth
Respondent herein. The Appellants and the contesting
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 being the tenants, had filed
separate Applications in Form - 7 under Section 48A of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 seeking occupancy at
different timelines. There were claim & counterclaim in
respect of some of these lands.
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
b) The Appellants had filed Form-7 in respect of the
subject lands on 10.11.1974 and that was allowed by the
Land Tribunal on 29.09.1981 in respect of land in Sy. No.
216 admeasuring 01A-03G, Sy.No.220 admeasuring 01A-
05G & Sy.No.222/4 admeasuring 01A-26G, of Shillangere
village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk. We have not adverted
to grant of occupancy in respect of other lands since there
is no dispute regarding the same. There was some
mistake in mentioning the name of Village and that was
rectified in time. The Land Tribunal vide order dated
19.09.1981 allowed the claim and granted occupancy.
also had filed Applications in Form-7 claiming occupancy
inter alia in respect of three of the same lands i.e.,
Sy.No.216 admeasuring 01A-03G, Sy.No.220 admeasuring
01A-05G & Sy.No. 222/4 admeasuring 01A-26G. The
Land Tribunal vide orders dated 20.11.1980 & 20.02.1981
granted occupancy. Thus, these orders are made before
the Appellants secured their orders. Obviously, the
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
respective tenants were not arrayed as parties to the
Claim & Counter Claims.
d) Appellants in terms of the Land Tribunal order
remitted the premium and got the Certificate in Form-10
and even the entries in the Revenue Records were
updated accordingly. However way back in 2005, the
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 tried to disturb the possession &
cultivation of Appellants, they made enquiries and learnt
of the Land Tribunal orders whereby occupancy was
granted in respect of subject lands. Immediately, they
procured necessary records and presented the subject
Writ Petition challenging the said orders.
e) After service of notice, the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4
having entered appearance resisted the Writ Petition on
the ground of delay & laches which was accepted by the
learned Single Judge and therefore, the impugned order
has been passed dismissing the said Petition. That is
how, the present Appeal at hands has arisen.
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the Appeal papers, we are inclined to
grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the
following reasons:
i) The first submission advanced on behalf of the
Appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in
negativing their petition on the ground of delay & laches,
merits acceptance. Firstly, the Appellants were not made
parties to the Applications in Form -7 filed by the
contesting Respondents herein. No explanation is offered
as to why they were made parties. The Appellants after
obtaining occupancy in terms of subsequent order of the
Land Tribunal, have got the Certificate in Form-10 on
remitting the premium. Even ME was certified although
entries were not updated for long. It is only when the
contesting Respondents tried to interfere in 2005, the
legal injury was caused to them and they have
immediately filed the Writ Petition. That is a plausible
explanation for the arguable delay & laches.
ii) Secondly, learned counsel for the Appellants
had produced Tahsildar's order dated 23.03.2006 which
obviously came into existence after the filing of Writ
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
Petition and that supports the claim of Appellants as to
their being in possession and cultivation of the subject
lands. This could not have remained unadverted by the
learned Single Judge who decided the matter in February,
2013, there being no rebuttal documents to the contrary.
We also have to keep in mind that ordinarily the villagers
do not evince much interest in seeing the entries in
Revenue Records and that they are not that vigilant when
it comes to official records that exclusively lie at the hands
of Revenue Department. They exhibit some inhibition in
approaching the Government offices. After all, the
Constitution does not prescribe any specific period of
limitation for invoking writ jurisdiction, although the
concept of delay & laches has been judicially evolved. A
worthy cause cannot be turned away on such technical
ground when a plausible explanation is offered for the
delay brooked. Therefore, learned Single Judge is not
justified in non-suiting the Appellants on the ground of
delay & laches.
iii) It is also relevant to note that even the
contesting respondents 3 & 4 have not laid a challenge to
the Land Tribunal order which the appellants have secured
and to the certificate in Form 10 all these years. The
contention of their counsel that the occupancy having
already been granted to their clients, subsequent grant
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
pales into insignificance, cannot be accepted sans a pinch
of salt. Land Tribunal is a statutory body exercising
exclusive jurisdiction in matters of tenancy of agricultural
lands as on 01.03.1974 by virtue of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961. The Apex Court in STATE OF
PUNJAB vs. GURDEV SINGH, AIR 1992 SC 111 has
observed that even when an order is without jurisdiction
and therefore non est, an aggrieved has to take
appropriate legal proceedings for voiding the same since
such orders do not bear on their forehead a brand of
invalidity. This aspect also could not have been
overlooked by the learned Single Judge.
(iv) When there are a Claim & Counter Claim for
grant of occupancy in respect of a particular land, it has
long been settled that they should be clubbed together &
heard. As an extension of this principle, it is also well
settled that when occupancy is granted although on two
different dates in favour of different persons, the claims
having been filed on different dates, of course, within
specified period i.e., 30.12.1979, the Land Tribunal should
recall both the orders so that the said applications are
clubbed & decided together. This course ought to have
been followed by the learned Single Judge and that would
have brought about a just result. This having not been
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
done, there is an accumulated error in the face of the
record warranting invalidation of the impugned order.
In the above circumstances, we make the following:
ORDER
(i) This appeal succeeds and impugned order of the
learned Single Judge is set at naught; further appellants
W.P.No.26331/2005 (LR) having been favoured, the Land
Tribunal orders dated 28.11.1980, 20.02.1981 &
29.09.1981 made in favour of both the appellants and
respondent nos. 3 & 4, only to the extent they comprise
the following lands of Shillangere village, are set aside.
Sl.No. SURVEY EXTENT
NOs.
1 216 01A-03G
2 220 01A-05G
3 222/4 01A-26G
(ii) The matter only to the above extent is remitted
to the jurisdictional Land Tribunal for consideration afresh
in accordance with law after giving opportunity of leading
evidence and hearing the stakeholders.
(iii) Parties through their respective advocates are
hereby put to notice to appear before the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19318-DB
Tribunal/Tahsildar on 04.07.2024 at 11 a.m. and seek
instructions at their hand.
(iv) The Registry to send a copy of this judgment to
the Tahsildar, Kolar Taluka, Kolar immediately by Speed
Post for information & needful action.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bsv
