Karnataka High Court
Kallappa S/O Dadu Sadalagi (Deceased) vs The Land Tribunal Gokak on 28 June, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB
WA No. 100290 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100290 OF 2022 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI KALLAPPA S/O. DADU SADALGI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,
1. SMT. PAVITRA W/O. PANDU SANADI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
2. SMT. RAMAVVA W/O. KADAPPA NAGANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
3. SMT. SUNITA W/O. SHIVBASU VAGENNAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
SRI DADU S/O. KALLAPPA SADALAGI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,
4. SMT. RANJANNA W/O. LATE DADU SADALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B V
Location: HIGH 5. SMT. SUKUMA D/O. LATE DADU SADALAGI,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
KARNATAKA
6. SRI DADU S/O. BANDU SADALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. SMT. AKKAVVA W/O. BAGWAN KENGAUR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
8. SMT. DRAUPADI W/O. BANDU SADALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCC: H/W,
ALL ARE R/AT: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.
- APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB
WA No. 100290 of 2022
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, GOKAK,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
4. THE TAHASILDAR, GOKAK,
TALUK: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.
SRI DUNDAPPA TIPPANNA MAGADUM
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,
SRI MALLAPPA DUNDAPPA MAGADUM
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,
5. SMT.KASTURI W/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. H/W,
6. SMT. LAKSHMI D/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. H/W,
7. SMT. RAJASHREE D/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. H/W,
8. SMT. SUNITHA D/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. H/W,
9. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. LATE MALLAPPA MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/AT: NEAR C.N. MUDHULAKHOD COLLEGE,
GOKAK ROAD, MUDALAGI-591312,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
10. SRI SHIVANAND S/O. DUNDAPPA MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.
11. SRI VIRUPAKSHI S/O. DUNDAPPA MAGADUM,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB
WA No. 100290 of 2022
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.
12. SRI SHRISHAILA S/O. PARAPPA MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT: MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.
SRI SADASHIV PARAPPA MAGADUM,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,
13. SMT.BHAGYASHREE
W/O. LATE SADASHIV MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. H/W,
14. SRI ABHISHEK S/O. LATE SADASHIV MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
15. KUMARI. ANKITA D/O. LATE SADASHIV MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. H/W,
16. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. PARAPPA MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC.H/W,
ALL ARE R/AT NEAR C.N.MUDHULAKHOD COLLEGE,
GOKAK ROAD, MUDALAGI-591312,
TQ.GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
17. SRI KALLAPPA S/O. PARAPPA MAGADUM,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. MUDALAGI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE C/R6;
SRI. MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.62039 OF
2009 DATED 30.03.2022 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY
ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB
WA No. 100290 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Though the appeal is listed for preliminary hearing, with
consent of both counsel it is taken up for disposal.
2. This intra Court appeal filed u/S 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 30.03.2022
in W.P. No. 62039/2009 rejecting the petitioners' challenge to
the Land Tribunal order dated 31.08.1979.
3. Parties to the appeal would be referred to as they stood
before the Writ Court. Before the Writ Court, appellants were
the petitioners and respondents herein were the respondents.
4. Heard Sri Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel for
the appellants, Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for
caveator/respondent no.6 and Sri Madanmohan M. Khannur,
learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 4. Perused writ appeal
papers.
5. Petitioners before this Court challenged Land Tribunal
order dated 31.08.1979 granting occupancy right in favour of
petitioner as well as Dundappa whose LRs are made as parties,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB
respondents no.5(a to e) to the writ petition, to an extent of 10
acres and 8 acres 32 guntas respectively.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that
Form No. 7 filed by Dundappa, father of respondents no.5(a to
e) is in respect of land in Sy. No. 299 whereas the subject
matter of the impugned order is Sy. No. 499. Thus he submits
that the Tribunal could not have entertained Form No.7 filed by
father of respondents no.5 (a to e). Learned counsel would
also submit that father of respondents no. 5 (a to e) states that
he was in possession of the land in question and was tenant
three years prior to 1974. Learned counsel would submit that
the Land Reforms Act came into existence in 1965 and he
ought to have been tenant since the beginning. Therefore he
contends that the order of Land Tribunal and the learned Single
Judge requires interference.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni would
refute allegations of the appellant and submits that Form No. 7
was sought to be amended in terms of application at Annexure-
R2 dated 14.03.1979 and said application was allowed by the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB
Tribunal in the year 1979 and permitted father of respondents
no.5(a to e) to amend Form No. 7 to include Sy. No. 499.
8. Nextly, learned counsel would submit that for establishing
the tenancy the relevant date would be 01.03.1974 and the
father of respondents no.5 (a to e) established that he was
tenant of the land as on 01.03.1974. Therefore he submits
that petitioner's contention that respondent no.5 ought to have
been tenant from 1963 has no merit. Thus he prays for
dismissal of the writ petition.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the writ appeal papers, the only point which falls for
consideration is:
Whether the impugned order of learned Single Judge
requires interference?
10. We answer the above point 'in the negative' for the
following reasons.
11. Before going into the contention of the appellant it is to
be noticed that the petitioner approached this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Land
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB
Tribunal order dated 31.08.1974 in the year 2022, after more
than 33 years. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay
and latches on the part of the petitioner and only on the ground
of delay and latches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
However, it is to be noticed that though Form No. 7 was filed
by father of respondents no. 5 (a to e) which is placed on
record as Annexure-D initially indicated sy. No. 299 but the
same is amended by making application at Annexure-R2 dated
14.03.1979 and the same said to have been allowed permitting
the father of respondents no.5 (a to e) to amend Form No. 7 to
include Sy. No. 499. It is settled position of law that tenancy is
to be established as on 01.03.1974 and if one establishes that
he is the tenant of the land as on 01.03.1974, the Tribunal has
no other option but to grant tenancy.
12. In the instant case, father of respondents no. 5 (a to e)
established his tenancy as on 01.03.1974. Therefore, there is
no error in the impugned order of the Tribunal or by the
learned Single Judge. Appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly
it is rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8798-DB
13. Pending applications also stand disposed in view of
disposal of the appeal on merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BVV
