Dismissed

Sri Mavarappa S/O Late Ramappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2013WP/37902/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order of the Land Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove possession or necessary party status, as the dispute primarily concerned claims by the owner and a tenant.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's application for impleadment was dismissed; the Land Tribunal's order dated 07.02.2011 was confirmed; the writ petition was dismissed.

Sri Mavarappa S/O Late Ramappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.37902/2011(L.R)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI MAVARAPPA S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC:RETIRED EMPLOYEE & AGRICULTURIST R/O 6TH CROSS, BOVI COLONY, HOSAMANE EXTENSION, SHIMOGA CITY

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

( BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADV )

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶14

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶15

M.S.BUILDING

¶16

DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶17

BANGALORE-1

¶18

2 THE LAND TRIBUNAL

¶19

SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SHIMOGA CITY

¶20

3 SRI RANGAPPA SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS LRS

¶21

¶22

3A) SRI R HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA @ BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O HOSAMANE EXTENSION

¶23

NEAR FATHIMA GORI, SHIMOGA CITY

¶24

3B) SRI R GOPINATHA S/O LATE RANGAPPA @ BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/A 5TH STAGE, 3RD CROSS VEERANNA LAYOUT, VINOBHA NAGAR SHIMOGA CITY

¶25

3C) SRI R MEGHARAJA S/O LATE RANGAPPA @ BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NEAR TELECOM LAYOUT, SY.NO.41, KALLAHALLI,, VINOBHA NAGAR, SHIMOGA CITY

¶26

3D) SRI R ANANDAKUMAR S/O LATE SRI RANGAPPA @ BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O IST CROSS, BANDHI BAJAR

¶27

SHIMOGA CITY

¶28

SMT SHARIFUNNISA W/O SARDARKHAN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O TILAKNAGAR, SHIMOGA CITY

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

( BY SRI. T.P. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 & 2 ) SRI KALEEMULLAH SHARIF, ADV FOR R4 (VK NOT FILED) SRI C.M. DESAI AND ARAVIND DESAI, ADV., FOR R3(b) TO R3(d) PETITION STANDS DISMISSED AGAINST R3(a)

¶31

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.02.2011 PASSED BY R2 IN CASE NO.LRF(T) INA.KHL NO.1/1991-92 REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR IMPLEADMENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE the FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petitioner is the applicant in the application filed

¶36

under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC before the Land Tribunal, Shimoga to implead him as respondent. His application came to be dismissed by its order dated 07.02.2011, against which the writ petition is filed.

¶37

It is the contention of the petitioner that, the suit

¶38

filed by the owner in respect of land in Sy No.41, for recovery of possession form this petitioner. In view of the pleading and also the fact that, the petitioner is in possession of 29 guntas in Sy. No.41. Since, the proceedings are pending before the Land Tribunal in respect of suit schedule properties, he is the necessary and proper party in the proceedings before the Tribunal. This application has been dismissed on the ground that he has not filed Form No.7 or 7(A) application .

¶39

¶40

On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate prayed to dismiss the petition by supporting the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Ownership of the petitioner in respect of Sy. No.41 is to be rejected as he neither filed form No.7 or 7A. Under these circumstances, the Land Tribunal has rightly rejected the application.

¶41

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶42

both side. and perused the papers available in this petition.

¶43

In support of this petition, the petitioner has not placed any reliance or materials as to the possession in respect of 29 guntas in Sy.No.41. Secondly, the dispute is with regard to the possession. It is between the owner, the petitioner and tenant, who has filed form No.7 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal got jurisdiction only in respect of the dispute between the claimant and the owner for considering the occupancy right or vice-versa. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove his his case for the purpose of becoming party before the Tribunal. Hence, I pass the following:

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The petition is dismissed. The impugned order of

¶47

the Tribunal is confirmed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Rms

Sri Mavarappa S/O Late Ramappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mavarappa S/O Late Ramappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Yamine @ Usha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vanajamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri M B Mahendra Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Kakamma @ Kaka Muniyamma Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Smt Sharief Unnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Thamanna S/O Late Muniswamy Vs the State of Karnataka