Karnataka High Court
Sri Gopinatha Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17931-DB
WA No. 1397 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1397 OF 2016 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOPINATHA SHETTY,
S/O LATE SUBBAIAH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/O PERUVAJE HOUSE, PERUVAJE VILLAGE,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-574 212.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
Digitally signed REP BY ITS SECRETARY
by SHARADA TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VANI B
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
KARNATAKA SULLIA TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 239.
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. SRI. ADAM KUNHI,
S/O LATE ABDUL BEARY,
MAJOR,
R/O PERUVAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574 212.
SINCE DECEASED BY SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONDENT NO.3 (A)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17931-DB
WA No. 1397 of 2016
3(A) SMT. MAIMUNA,
AGED 47 YEARS,
R/O AMBATEGEDDE,
PERUVAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK
DK - 574 212.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 15.11.2021
4. SRI. NANDAPPA SHETTY,
S/O BATYAPPA SHETTY,
MAJOR,
R/O PERUVAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 212.
4(A) RANTHAVATHI,
W/O LATE NANDAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
4(B) JAYAPRAKASHA,
S/O LATE NINDAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
4(C) SATHEESHA,
S/O LATE NANDAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
4(D) PUSHPARAJA
S/O LATE NANDAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
4(E) SUDHA,
S/O LATE NANDAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.4(A) TO (E) ARE
ALL RESIDING AT PERUVAJE VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 212.
AMENDED V.C.O DATED 01.06.2021
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K R RAJENDRA., AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT.,ADV., FOR C/R3 & R4(A)
TO (E))
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17931-DB
WA No. 1397 of 2016
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
IN THE WRIT PETITION 7082/2007 DATED 18/03/2016.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal seeks to call in question a
learned Single Judge's order dated 18.03.2016 whereby
the appellant's W.P.No.7082/2007 (LR) laying a challenge
to the grant of occupancy in favour of respondents herein
has been negatived.
2. After service of notice, learned AGA appears for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The Respondent-tenants are
represented by a private counsel who vehemently opposes
the appeal making submission in justification of the
impugned order and for the reasons on which it is
favoured.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers so also the original
TCR, we decline indulgence in the matter on the following
grounds:
NC: 2024:KHC:17931-DB
(i) The entire case of the appellant is structured on
the basis of the entries in the Revenue Records from 1968
onwardswherein his name admittedly does not figure in
Column No.9 as the owner, but it figures only in Column
No.12 as khabzedaar. The ownership column contains the
name of Smt.Yamuna w/o Subbaiah Shetty. Admittedly
Yamuna is shown to be the landlady in Form 7 dated
12.08.1974 which came to be amended vide application
dated 16.03.1989 that came to be allowed on 16.08.1989.
Whether such an amendment could have been allowed or
not, is the question which cannot be raised by a person
who is not the landlord. It has been a settled position of
law that a million questions may arise before the court,
but unless the right person raises them in the right
proceedings, the court will not readily undertake to
examine them.
(ii) The second contention of the appellant that after
the cut-off date namely 30.06.1979, no application in
Form No.7 could have been filed nor any new land could
NC: 2024:KHC:17931-DB
have been included in the existing application by way of
subsequent amendment does not merit consideration since
the appellant does not have locus standi to raise the said
question as already observed above. If Smt. Yamuna
were to be a party before the Court laying a challenge to
the order of the Land Tribunal after the amendment was
allowed, post cut off date arguably that question could
have been examined.
(iii) Admittedly, the Tribunal has the substantive
jurisdiction to entertain the claim for the grant of
occupancy. When a quasi judicial order is passed by a
Tribunal, the challenge to the same has to be treated as
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
notwithstanding the other Article 226 being ornamentally
employed in the writ petition. If that be so, the point of
maintainability of writ appeal also crops up in view of the
Seven Judge Bench decision of this Court in TAMANNA
vs. RENUKA, 2009 SCC Online KAR 123, no exceptional
circumstances having demonstrated from the records.
NC: 2024:KHC:17931-DB
(iv) The contention that the partition deed records
this subject land in the name of appellant herein, does not
make much difference to the case inasmuch as such an
arrangement has come into existence only in the year
2001 i.e., decades after 01.03.1974 which is the relevant
date for reckoning going by a catena of decisions of this
court.
(v) We have carefully perused the authentic copies
of records/TCR made available to us. This legal battle
which has a chequered history should come to a halt once
for all, there being absolutely no grounds whatsoever for
upsetting the grant of occupancy in favour of the tenants.
The said order has brought about a just result and regard
being had to limitations of an intra court appeal, we are
unable to undertake a deeper examination which
otherwise would have been endeavored. However, we
appreciate the passionate submissions advanced by
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC:17931-DB
In the above circumstances, this writ appeal being
devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed,
costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
