Allowed

Kammarunnisa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2016WP/7168/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging Land Tribunal orders granting occupancy rights to a third respondent. Finding that essential ingredients of tenancy were not established due to lack of material evidence and RTC extracts, the court held the grant of rights legally flawed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; proceedings initiated by the third respondent stand quashed.

Kammarunnisa Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF MARCH 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.7168 OF 2000 (KLRA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Kammarunnisa, Since dead by Legal Representatives:

¶9

Zahidunnisa, Wife of Late S.A.Shakhadri, Aged about 60 years,

¶10

Syed Akmal, Son of Late S.A.Shakhadri, Aged about 42 years,

¶11

Syed Akram, Son of Late S.A.Shakhadri, Aged about 40 years,

¶12

Syed Mukram, Son of Late S.A.Shakhadri, Aged about 38 years,

¶13

Syed Mouzam,

¶14

Son of Late S.A.Shakhadri,

¶15

¶16

Aged about 36 years,

¶17

Syeda Amtul Asma, Daughter of Late S.A.Shakhadri, Aged about 41 years,

¶18

Syeda Amtul Amena, Daughter of Late S.A.Shakhadri, Aged about 39 years,

¶19

Syeda Amtul Iffath, Daughter of Late S.A.Shakhadri, Aged about 37 years,

¶20

Noor Ayesha, Daughter of Late S.A.Shakhadri, Aged about 34 years,

¶21

S.B.Munavuruddin, Son of Late Syed Babu, Aged about 65 years,

¶22

All are residing at Adjacent to Ibrahim Khallelullah Mosque, Behind Sofiya High School, 4^th Cross, Ashoknagar, K.G.Halli, Shampur Main Road, Bangalore 560 045.

¶23

S.B.Anwaruddin, Son of Late Syed Babu, Aged about 70 years,

¶24

S.B.Athuruddin, Sonof Late Syed Babu,

¶25

¶26

Aged about 62 years, Petitioner Nos.12 and 13 are Residing at Shivanapura Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(By Shri A. Balakrishnan, Advocate)

¶29

AND:

¶30

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Road, Bangalore 560 001.

¶31

The Land Tribunal, Hoskote Taluk, Hoskote, Represented by its Secretary/Tahasildar, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶32

Sri. Muniyappa, Son of Buddappa, Aged about 40 years, Residing at Shivanapura Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore District.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

¶35

(By Smt. B.P.Radha, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 and 2; Respondent No.3 served)

¶36

¶37

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order of the Land Tribunal, Hoskote Taluk, Hoskote, dated 1.2.1989 and etc;

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent

¶41

no.3 has been served, but has remained absent and is not represented.

¶42

The petitioner is said to be the owner of land in survey

¶43

No.112/2 measuring 4 acre 3 guntas of Shivanapura village, Nandagudi Holbli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore District. This land had been granted in favour of State Bank of India, Hosakote Branch.

¶44

The third respondent, according to the petitioner, who had no right over the property sought to claim occupancy rights

¶45

¶46

by filing Form No.7 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It is the further case of the petitioner that without causing notice to the petitioner and without holding proper inquiry, occupancy rights were granted in favour of the third respondent by an order dated 22.7.1981. That was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition before this court in WP 22154/1981. The petition was allowed and the matter remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. On such remand, the petitioner claims that there was yet again no opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. That the Land Tribunal was also not in a position to decide the case one way or the other as two of the members, including the chairman, had opined that the tenancy was established whereas two other members disagreed and the verdict was reserved and no further order was passed.

¶47

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is the name of the petitioner which appeared in the cultivators column from the year 1968-69 to 1971-72 and from

¶48

¶49

1972-73 to 1975-76. Therefore, on the appointed date, namely, 1.3.1974, it was the petitioner’s name which figured in the RTC extracts and one of the ingredients of establishing tenancy and claim for occupancy rights was to demonstrate that it was in the cultivation of the tenant as on 1.3.1974. If this primary ingredient was not established, it is not possible for the tenant to have claimed occupancy rights.

¶50

Though the learned Government Advocate was directed to obtain the records, in order to verify whether the RTC extract as on 1.3.1974 stood in the petitioner’s name, it is now reported that the records are not available. As the matter is of some vintage, records may have been destroyed. In the light of the circumstance that there is no material to show that the third respondent was indeed occupying the land and there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner, who is admittedly the owner of the land and the third respondent and in the absence of any material to establish that the third

¶51

¶52

respondent was cultivating the land as on 1.3.1974, the claim for occupancy rights ought to have been rejected.

¶53

The Tribunal having arrived at an impasse, in that circumstance, notwithstanding this bench is of the opinion that the primary ingredients of establishing the tenancy and to claim tenancy rights in respect of the land in question was not supported by any material document and therefore, the claim for occupancy rights ought to have been rejected, the petition is accordingly allowed. The proceedings initiated by the third

¶54

respondent stand quashed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Kammarunnisa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kammarunnisa v. the 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

Kampaiah Vs Sarvar Khan

Sri C Vishwanath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a N Krishna Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

K R Sujatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshman Vs the State of Karnataka