Dismissed

Sri Patel Channabasappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2021WA/2202/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court appeal by heirs of a deceased appellant regarding grant of occupancy rights over land. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order that the Land Tribunal correctly rejected the claim as the land was Gramathana and not agricultural land per Section 2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

Appealed order dated 09.03.2017 affirmed; writ appeal in W.P.No.22007/2010 dismissed.

Sri Patel Channabasappa Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND

¶6

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

¶7

W.A. NO.2202/2017 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. PATEL CHANNABASAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

¶10

SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE PATEL CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶11

SRI. SURESHAPPA S/O LATE PATEL CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶12

SRI. C. PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O LATE PATEL CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶13

SRI. DEVARAJ S/O LATE PATEL CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶14

APPELLANTS ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND, RESIDENTS OF NAVILE BASAPURA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶15

...APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. B.V. SHANKARANARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING

¶20

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE LAND TRIBUNAL BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-TAHASILDAR BHADRAVATHI - 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶22

SRI. BASAVANNA DEVARU NAVILEBASAVAPURA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶23

REPRESENTED BY TIS CONVENER SRI. DOREYAPPA S/O LATE NAVILAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS HONAVILE VILLAGE - 577 301. SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶24

GRAMA PANCHYATH NAVILEBASAVPATNA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA, A.G.A FOR R-1 & R-2; R-3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED: SRI. R. SHARATHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶27

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 09.03.2017 IN W.P.NO.2207/2010 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN W.P.22007/2010 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN.

¶29

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22007/2010 whereunder writ petition filed challenging the order dated 25.03.2010 passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the claim for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.28 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas was affirmed and writ petition came to be dismissed.

¶32

Amongst other lands, petitioner sought for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.28 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas situated at Navile Basavapatna village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shivamogga

¶33

¶34

District contending interalia that he is tilling the said land as a tenant under third respondent. In fact, tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of all the lands claimed by the petitioner namely, to an extent of 16 acres 17 guntas except in respect of Sy.No.1/28 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas on the ground that said land falls within the Gramathana namely, village panchayat limits.

¶35

The writ petition filed challenging the said order came to be dismissed on the ground that Gram panchayat had passed a resolution on 01.07.2003 to allot sites after forming it, to siteless persons and said resolution had been questioned by petitioner in W.P.No.38009/2003 along with connected matters and said writ petition came to be disposed of on 11.07.2005 whereunder, learned Single Judge had declined to quash the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. It was also held by the learned Single Judge that on account of the said resolution of Gram Panchayat being

¶36

¶37

in force declaring the land in question as Gramathana and revenue report as well as sketch of the revenue authorities was clearly disclosing that land claimed by petitioner for grant of occupancy right was a Gramathana land.

¶38

Having heard the learned Advocates

¶39

appearing for parties and on perusal of the records, it would clearly indicate that tribunal by impugned order dated 25.03.2010 had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of said land being Gramathana. Mere possession of the land even if any, by the petitioner ipso facto does not entitle him to seek for conferment of occupancy right in respect of a land which would fall outside the definition of the expression "land" as defined under Section 2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 .

¶40

The expression "land" as defined under Section 2(18) would mean and include only agricultural land and not a land which cannot be used for

¶41

¶42

agricultural purposes. In fact, the third respondent had passed a resolution on 01.07.2003 to form sites to an extent of 3 acres 25 guntas in P.R.No.133 of Navile Basavapatna namely, in the land which was claimed by the petitioner, for being distributed to eligible siteless and houseless persons. Accordingly, giving effect to the said resolution, the sites are said to have been formed by the Gram Panchayat.

¶43

Be that as it may. The validity of the aforesaid resolution was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.38009/2003 and said writ petition was withdrawn on 22.07.2003. Writ petition No.5795/2004 was filed questioning the order dated 19.04.1976 which had been passed by the land tribunal at the first instance rejecting Form No.7 filed by late Sri Channabasappa, namely, predecessor in title of the petitioners. Said writ petition which came to be disposed of along with W.P.No.38009/2003 by order dated 11.07.2005, an observation came to be made in

¶44

¶45

respect of the land in dispute, which is the subject matter of this proceedings, to the following effect:

¶46

"4. Even though W.P.5795/2004 xxx affording an opportunity to the petitioners. The Gram Panchayat claims that the aforementioned land bearing P.R.No.133 of Basapur village of old gramatana land to an extent of 3 acres 25 guntas belongs to it. It should be given an opportunity to prove that the land belongs to it. If it proves that the land belongs to it, it can take appropriate action to implement the impugned Resolution dt.1-7-2003 produced at Annexure-M in W.P.No.38009/2003. Therefore, the said Resolution need not be quashed by this court as prayed in the said writ petition."

¶47

By virtue of aforesaid observations made, it

¶48

is contended by Sri Shankaranarayana Rao, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that burden is on the third respondent to prove said land as a Gramathana land and it had utterly failed and had not even produced any documents to establish it is a Gramathana land. The records on hand would disclose that Mojanidar had surveyed the subject land and had

¶49

¶50

submitted a report to the land tribunal that Sy.No.1/28 namely, P.R.No.133 is a old Gramathana land. Way back on 01.07.2003, third respondent had passed the resolution to form sites in said land to an extent of 3 acres 25 guntas for being allotted to siteless persons and said resolution as already noticed herein above, had been assailed in W.P.No.38009/2003 c/w W.P.No.5795/2004 which was not quashed. The revenue sketch prepared by the revenue department depicted that the land in Sy.No.1/28 had been assigned the P.R.No.133 and it also indicated that it is a Gramathana land. The petitioner who has been granted land to an extent of 16 acres 17 guntas is also laying his claim in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.1/28 - Property Registration No.133 which is adjacent to the lands granted to him. It may be a fact that on account of said land being adjacent and abutting the land which was being tilled by petitioner, was also utilized by him. However, it would not alter or change the nature of the

¶51

¶52

land namely, from Gramathana to agricultural land. Hence, we do not find any error committed by the learned single Judge in refusing to interfere with the order passed by the tribunal, whereunder claim for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 4 acres 7 guntas in Sy.No.1/28 has been rejected.

¶53

Resultantly, we proceed the pass the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) Writ Appeal is dismissed. (ii) Order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22007/2010 is affirmed.

¶56

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

SD/JUDGE

¶59

*sp

Sri Patel Channabasappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Patel Channabasappa 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

Prof Dr G C Raju Vs the Principal

Smt B D Mahadevi Vs Sri Rajappa

National Investigation Agency Vs Sri Vijay R

Union of India Vs Hanumantharayappa

M v Ambarish Raja Vs Sri B H Anil Kumar IAS

The General Manager Vs Sri Nagesh Honnappa Gaonkar