Dismissed

Shri Chikkaramanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2016WP/2005/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka heard a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act. The court distinguished a cited precedent and rejected the petition due to lack of title in revenue records and failure to prove tenancy as of 1974.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no relief granted. Learned Government Advocate permitted to file memo of appearance.

Shri Chikkaramanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.2005 OF 2016 (LR - RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Shri Chikkaramanna S/o late Ramanna Aged about 65 years R/at:Gangapura Village Nandagudi Hobli Hosakote Taluk - 562114 …PETITIONER

¶9

(By Shri Prakash T. Hebbar, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka Revenue Department 5^th Floor, M.S.Building Dr.Ambedkar Road Bangalore – 560 001 Rep. by its Secretary

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner Land Tribunal, Doddaballapura Sub-Division Hosakote Taluk – 562 114

¶13

¶14

The Tahsildar Secretary, Land Tribunal Hosakote Taluk – 562 114

¶15

MR.H.A. Ahmed Sheriff S/o Late Sabjan Sab Aged about 82 years R/at: Hosakote Town – 562 114

¶16

R.Narayanappa Since deceased by his LR’s

¶17

Smt. Parvathamma W/o late Narayanappa Aged about 71 years

¶18

Shri N. Venugopal S/o late Narayanappa Aged about 54 years

¶19

Smt. Savithramma D/o late Narayanappa Aged about 51 years

¶20

Shri G.N. Balakrishna S/o late Narayanappa Aged about 49 years

¶21

Shri N. Ramesh S/o late Narayanappa Aged about 46 years

¶22

Shri N. Janakiram S/o late Narayanappa Aged about 43 years

¶23

¶24

Smt. N. Nagaveni D/o late Narayanappa Aged about 41 years

¶25

Shri N. Narasimha Raju S/o late Narayanappa Aged about 39 years

¶26

All are residing at Garudacharpalya Mahadevapura Post Pin code – 560 048 Kriahnarajpuram Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(By Shri Laxminarayan, Additional Government Advocate) *****

¶29

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 09.01.2013 passed by R-2 at Annex-A, dismissing Form No.7 filed by the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 2 acres in Sy.no.3/P11 of Gangapura Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, after calling for the records from the file of R-2.

¶30

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶33

learned Government Pleader.

¶34

¶35

The petitioner is said to have filed Form No.7 under

¶36

the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LR Act’, for brevity), claiming occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.3/P11 on the basis that he has been a tenant under Respondent No.4. It transpires that occupancy rights were granted in his favour, which was promptly challenged by the father of Respondents 5 to 12 in a writ petition before this Court in W.P.20920/1993 alleging that the impugned order had been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the husband of Respondent No.5 and father of Respondents 6 to 12. Therefore, the petition was summarily allowed and the matter was remanded for a fresh consideration. On such remand, it is the allegation of the petitioner that the Land Tribunal has in undue haste, proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner, without reference to the revenue records and other evidence placed on record and directed the third respondent to transfer the revenue records in favour of the purchaser, namely the husband of Respondent

¶37

¶38

No.5 and father of Respondents 6 to 12. It is in this background that the present petition is filed alleging that the Tribunal had issued a public notice and on the very day, the said notice was published in the local newspaper and the Tribunal has posted the matter for orders. The petitioner however had not appeared before the Tribunal. The Tribunal having proceeded to post the matter for orders and having proceeded to pass the impugned order which is totally contrary to law and the rules, namely the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1974, the present petition is filed.

¶39

On further hearing the counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner’s father was a tenant under Respondent No.4 or the father of Respondent No.4 and the revenue records reflect the petitioner’s father’s name as being in cultivation of the land right from 1969 onwards till 2014-15 and the name of the fourth respondent’s father is shown in the owner’s column in the revenue records. Incidentally, the petitioner’s father is said to have sold the land to one Narayanappa, the husband of

¶40

¶41

Respondent No.5 on 27.04.1978 under a registered sale deed. That sale deed has not been disturbed. It is not forthcoming as to under what right the petitioner’s father had sold the land in question. That sale deed never having been questioned or having been set aside, the title stands conferred on Narayanappa

¶42

under whom Respondents 5 to 12 claim. In this background when the petitioner’s name or the name of Respondent No.4 does not figure anywhere in the revenue records, the petitioner’s claim to occupancy rights as being a tenant as on 1.3.1974 is not made out, since his father’s name has appeared and continues to appear. Even though the petitioner’s father is said to be dead, the counsel is not in a position to state as to when he died. Given the inexplicable circumstance as to whether the land has been sold by the petitioner’s father who was himself claiming to be a tenant and when the tenancy of the present petitioner is not forthcoming, especially as on 1.3.1974, irrespective of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal that the

¶43

¶44

petitioner has not made out a case for interference by this Court. The petition is rejected.

¶45

The learned Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Shambhu Eshwar Hegde vs. Land Tribunal, Kumta & Anr. (1979) 2 KLJ 194. In the said case, the petitioner was said to be an assignee of the interest of the original permanent tenant who had challenged the validity of the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent therein. The second respondent was said to be a mulageni tenant and he was in possession and personally cultivating the lands in that capacity. With the coming into force of the Karnataka Act No.1/1974, the petitioner who was said to be the son-in-law of the second respondent therein, namely the second daughter of the second respondent having married the petitioner on

¶47

¶48

18.03.1974 and that after the marriage, the petitioner had started living with his wife’s family and the land was conferred under a registered gift dated 15.04.1974, whereby the mulageni right was transferred in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of Act No.1/1974, the second respondent, his wife and two daughters had made separate applications in Form No.7 in respect of the lands in question for being registered as occupants. The petitioner is also said to have made an application in Form No.7 for being registered as an occupant of the lands in question on the basis of a gift deed. The Land Tribunal is said to have clubbed all the applications and had held a common enquiry and has passed a common order rejecting the application of the petitioner and also those of the wife and the two daughters of the second respondent and had granted occupancy right in favour of the second respondent. It is in this background that the writ petition was filed.

¶49

¶50

The facts narrated in the above case are totally alien to

¶51

the facts in the present case on hand. The judgment therefore

¶52

will not apply and the petition is accordingly, rejected.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

JUDGE

¶55