Dismissed

Sri Denis Quadros v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2021WA/1842/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's refusal to quash a Land Tribunal order granting occupancy rights was dismissed. The Court held there was no merit in the appeal and clarified that the decision does not prevent the landowner from voluntarily releasing land.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed and the accompanying stay application (IA.1 of 2019) was also dismissed.

Sri Denis Quadros Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1842 OF 2019 (LR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI.DENIS QUADROS SON OF LATE.MONTHU QUADROS AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT KIDYOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN-576 101.

¶11

SMT.KOSHA FERNANDES DAUGHTER OF LATE.MONTHU QUADROS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDENT OF MATPADY VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA

¶12

UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 101.

¶13

... APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI: H.JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE(PH))

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI, KAUP HOBLI

¶18

¶19

UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶20

SRI.AGUSTIN QUADROS SON OF LATE.MONTHU QUADROS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT POLICE QUARTERS KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.

¶21

SMT.MAGADALINA DAUTHTER OF LATE. MONTHU QUADROS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT KIDYOOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101.

¶22

SRI.STANY D’SOUZA SON OF JOSEPH DOOJA D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT BELLE VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 101.

¶23

SMT.SUMATHI P.RAI WIFE OF PRAKASHCHANDRA RAI MAJOR RESIDING AT BELLE VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 101. ...RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI:C.N.MAHADESHWARAN AGA FOR R1 & R2(PH); SRI: S.K.ACHARYA ADVOCATE FOR R6 (PH); R3 AND R4 –NOTICE TREATED AS GOOD SERVICE VIDE ORDER DTD 22.11.2019; R5 SERVED)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2019 MADE IN WRIT PETITION NOS.42794 OF 2012 AND 10244 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL AND KINDLY GRANT RELIEFS

¶26

¶27

SOUGHT FOR IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.42794 OF 2012 AND 10244 OF 2013.

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The appellants have assailed the impugned order dated 08/04/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.42794 of 2012 and 10244 of 2013 refusing to quash Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2 granting occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.17/3.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that, the appellants being the son and daughter of late Monthu Quadros filed the writ petitions seeking to quash order dated 19/07/2007 i.e., Annexure-A passed by respondent No.2 granting occupancy rights as per the compromise entered into between the parties and to issue writ of mandamus to respondent No.2 to consider the claim made by their father late Monthu Quadros in Form No.7 in respect of the petition schedule lands.

¶32

¶33

The learned Single Judge considered that the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the children of Monthu Quadros who filed the application in Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Udupi seeking occupancy rights in respect of 9 items of the land described in the schedule to the petitions belonging to the contesting respondent No.6. The said application was considered by the Tribunal and vide judgment dated 12/11/1976, the occupancy rights was conferred on the applicant Monthu Quadros in respect of the land claimed by him. The said order was challenged by filing Writ Petition No.17777 of 1980 by the father of respondent No.5. Mr.Pontu Quadros, in whose favour the occupancy rights was granted who was arrayed as respondent No.3 and the owner of the land was also a party in the said writ petition. The said writ petition came to be allowed and the order dated 12/11/1976 passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal with a direction to hold a fresh enquiry regarding the claim made by the petitioner and respondent No.3 in accordance with law.

¶34

¶35

The Land Tribunal after remand, considered

¶36

the application in Form No.7 filed by Mr.Monthu Quadros and Mr.Joseph (Duja) D’Souza together. It is stated that during the pendency of enquiry before the Land Tribunal, both the original applicants i.e., Mr.Monthu Quadros and Mr.Joseph (Duja) D’Souza died and their legal representatives were brought on record. Respondent Nos.3 and 5, being their legal representatives and respondent No.6 being the owner of the land, settled the dispute by filing joint memo dated 28/06/2007 vide Annexure-G. In light of the compromise petition filed by the parties, an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.17/3 of Belle village, Udupi Taluk was granted in favour of the legal representatives of 1^st applicant late Monthu Quadros by observing that in fact the said land was not claimed by the applicant while filing the application in Form No. 7. The other lands described in the petition schedule were allotted in favour of legal representatives of the 2^nd applicant late Joseph (Duja) D’Souza. The claim made by both the applicants in their

¶37

¶38

applications in Form No.7 in respect of other properties were rejected.

¶39

The said order passed by the Land Tribunal was impugned by filing the writ petitions after long lapse of five years by contending that respondent No.3 who is the brother of the appellants was not authorized to enter into compromise and sign the joint memo. The learned Single Judge observed that no materials were placed before the Court by the petitioners to establish that the application in Form No.7 filed by late Monthu Quadros was maintainable before the Land Tribunal. It is also noticed that no enquiry was held by the Land Tribunal when initially occupancy rights was granted in his favour and nothing is on record to show that late Monthu Quadros was in cultivation and possession of the land at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the writ petitions came to be dismissed.

¶40

We have heard Sri.H.Jayakara Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran,

¶41

¶42

learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.S.K.Acharya, learned Counsel for respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.

¶43

Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that even though respondent No.3 is their brother, only 1 acre of land is accepted by him on behalf of the family. He further submitted that respondent No.6, being the owner of the schedule properties is ready and willing to part with some more extent of land in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Monthu Quadros.

¶44

This submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶45

On perusal of the material on record in light of the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants who are siblings of respondent Nos.3 and 4 who entered into settlement with respondent No.5 who are the legal

¶46

¶47

representatives of the other applicants. However, it is concluded that if respondent No.6 is voluntarily willing to release any extent of land in favour of the legal representatives of late Monthu Quadros, the same cannot be questioned.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶49

However, the dismissal of this appeal would not come in the way of respondent No.6 releasing any extent of land to the appellants, as he deems fit.

¶50

Also, if the appellants have any right, title or interest in respect of 1 acre of land, which is the subject matter of compromise, they are at liberty to enforce their rights visà-vis respondent Nos.3 and 4 in accordance with law.

¶51

It is clarified that the aforesaid liberty shall not be construed as a direction issued to them or a right granted to the appellants.

¶52

¶53

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.1 of 2019

¶54

filed for stay is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

*bgn/-

Sri Denis Quadros v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Denis Quadros 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

Mrs Veena S a Nayak Vs Mr Shivaraj Kumar v

P Mohan Vs Smt. H P Sunitha

Juliana Menezes Vs Richard Menezes

The Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society Vs Sri. Krishna Traders

Union of India Vs Smt.M.Kalaivani

Sri K Raghu Vs State of Karnataka