Dismissed

Sri Vasantha Poojary v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Oct 2020WA/970/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the dismissal of a petition seeking occupancy rights over 'Poonja land' excluded from a Geni chit. The Single Judge held such land could not be tenanted. The High Court held that as the claim depended solely on a Geni chit, the Tribunal rightly rejected the application for surveyed land not covered therein.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition upheld; no relief granted to appellants.

Sri Vasantha Poojary Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶8

W.A.No. 970/2019

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Sri. Vasantha Poojary, Son of late Jogi Poojary,

¶11

Aged about 50 years,

¶12

Smt. Gulabi Poojarthy,

¶13

Daughter of late Jogi Poojary, Aged about 54 years,

¶14

Smt. Lalitha Poojarthy, Daughter of late Jogi Poojary,

¶15

Smt. Vasanthi Poojarthy, Daughter of late Jogi Poojary, Aged about 52 years,

¶16

Smt. Lalitha, Wife of late Gopa Poojar, Aged about 55 years,

¶17

Smt. Jayanthi, Daughter of late Gopa Poojary, Aged about 30 years,

¶18

¶19

7.	Sri. Santhosh Poojary, Son of late Fopa Poojary, Aged about 28 years,
8.	Sri. Ganesh Poojary, Son of late Gopa Poojary, Aged about 26 years,
	Appellants No.1 to 8 are all Resident of Keremane, Jakribettu, Hirgana Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District, Pin – 576 101. … Appellants
(By	Sri. Jayakara Shetty. H, Advocate)
AND	:
1.	The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Revenue Secretary, M.S.Building Bangalore – 560 001.
2.	The Land Tribunal Karkala, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District, Represented by its Chairman.
3.	Sri. Radhakrishna Nayak, Aged about 53 years, Son of late Subraya Nayak, Residing of Manjimaru House, Hirgana Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District,Pin. … Respondents
(By Sr	Sri. T.L. Krian Kumar AGA for R-1 7 R-2, i. K. Chandranath Ariga, Advocate for R-3)

¶20

¶21

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 05/03/2019 made in Writ Petition No.26240/2017 and 8159/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by allowing the above appeal and kindly grant reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition No.26240/2017 and W.P.No.8159/2019.

¶22

This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, SANJAY GOWDA, J., delivered the following:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The father of appellant Nos.1 to 4 i.e. late Jogi Poojary had filed Form No.7 application seeking occupancy right. The application was in respect of several properties situate in Higana village of Karkala Taluk, including Survey No.421/1, which was a “Poonja” land.

¶25

The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence produced before it, came to the conclusion that the applicant was entitled to be conferred occupancy rights in respect of all lands he had applied for except Sy No 421/1.

¶26

¶27

In respect of survey No.421/1, the Tribunal held that the said land was not only a ‘poonja land’ but it was also not the subject matter of Geni chit and therefore, it could not be considered as a tenanted land and it proceeded to reject the application only in so far as Sy. No. 421/1 is concerned.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the rejection of the Form No.7 application in respect of survey No.421/1, the legal representatives of Jogi Poojary preferred the writ petition.

¶29

Learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, however, dismissed the writ petitions (W.P.Nos.26240/2017 & 8159/2019) on the ground that

¶30

the land claimed by the appellant i.e. Jogi Poojary was a ‘poonja land’ and the said land was in possession of the land lord. The learned Single Judge also found that the said land was also not the subject matter of Geni chit and therefore no claim for conferment of occupancy

¶31

¶32

rights could be raised by Jogu poojary or his Legal representatives.

¶33

6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the

¶34

petition, the present writ appeal is preferred.

¶35

The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the access to his house was only through the road which lay in Survey No.421/1 and if his claim of tenancy was rejected he would be left with no access to his house at all.

¶36

Admittedly, the case put forward by the Jogi Poojary principally was that he was a tenant in respect of certain lands on the basis of the Geni chit executed by Subraya Nayak. Apart from the Geni chit, Jogi Poojary did not put forth a claim of tenancy on any other basis. Despite the principal claim made on the basis of the Geni Chit, nevertheless, he had made an application for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No.421/1.

¶37

¶38

In our view, since the claim was based entirely on Geni chit, the appellants before the Land Tribunal could not stake a claim in respect of a land which are not subject matter of Geni chit.

¶39

Furthermore, since it is an undisputed fact that Sy.No.421/1 is a ‘Poonja land’ and since it is settled law, which is also accepted by the learned counsel for the appellants that ‘Poonja lands’ cannot be the subject matter of a tenancy, the Land Tribunal obviously could not have considered the application of Jogu Poojary and it has rightly rejected the same.

¶40

The Tribunal was thus justified in rejecting the claim of Jogi Poojary. The learned Single Judge by upholding the order of the Land Tribunal by dismissing the writ petition has committed no error.

¶41

The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that apart from the road, which is stated to be

¶42

¶43

situated in Survey No.421/1, there is no other means of access to the lands granted to them, cannot be accepted as a plea in support of an application for conferment of occupancy rights based on tenancy. It is to be stated here that since this plea was not raised before the Land Tribunal and further since on the basis of such a plea of access, lands cannot be granted under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, there is no merit in the contention advanced by the Learned Counsel.

¶44

It may however be stated here that Sri Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, on instructions, made a statement that as a matter of fact there a road lay in survey No.147, which has been granted to the appellant, through which he had clear access to his house. In our view, in the light of this submission of Sri. Ariga the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be rejected.

¶45

¶46

The fact that the appellants did not raise a claim for tenancy on the premise that the said land was the only means of access to his house, by itself, proves that the appellants did have access to the house through the other lands which had been granted by the Tribunal. We, therefore find no merit in the arguments placed by the learned counsel for the appellants and we also do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal, thus, being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

KTY

Sri Vasantha Poojary v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vasantha Poojary 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Aarati Khanapure Vs Sri Kumargaurav

Sri M Ramesh Naik (Ramesh M.N) Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Gurucharan D J Vs Smt Sera Cherian

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Madhukumar Urs

The State of Karnataka Vs Mr Hemanth Kumar S G

The State of Karnataka Vs Chetan Kumar a B