Allowed

Mahadevappa S/O Shivanna @ Shivappa Rayar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021WP/100288/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition quashing Land Tribunal order refusing occupancy rights. Court held no prohibition exists under Karnataka Land Reforms Act for blood relatives. Court directed Land Tribunal to confer occupancy rights and issue Form No.10 certificate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.12.2017 quashed; Land Tribunal directed to confer occupancy rights in favour of petitioners for Sy.No.108 and issue Form No.10 certificate.

Mahadevappa S/O Shivanna @ Shivappa Rayar Vs the State… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.100288 of 2018 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

1 . MAHADEVAPPA S/O SHIVANNA @ SHIVAPPA RAYAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶9

1a. SMT.SEETAVVA

¶10

W/O MAHADEVAPPA RAYAR, AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KUNDAGOL, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶11

1b. SHIVAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA RAYAR AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUNDAGOL, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶12

1c. SMT.SOMAKKA @ KAMALLAVVA W/O YALLAPPA ANCHATGERI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BIDNAL, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

1d. MALLIKARJUN

¶14

S/O MAHADEVAPPA RAYAR, AGE: 51 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUNDAGOL, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD ...PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. F V PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560001.

¶20

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KUNDAGOL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KUNDAGOL.

¶21

SMT.GANGAVVA W/O NINGAPPA RAYAR SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS,

¶22

3a. SOMAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA RAYAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶23

3a.(i) PARWATEVVA W/O SOMAPPA RAYAR, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KUNDAGOL, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶24

3a.(ii) RAMAPPA S/O SOMAPPA RAYAR AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUNDAGOL, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶25

3a.(iii) ASHOK S/O SOMAPPA RAYAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUNDAGOL, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶26

¶27

3a(iv) SMT.YALLAVVA W/O BASAPPA SAUNSHI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MALALI, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶28

3(b). GURAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA RAYAR AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HAVERI, TQ: HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

¶29

3(c). SHEKAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA RAYAR AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUNDAGOL, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶30

3(d). NAGAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA RAYAR AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NANDI BHADAVANE, NAVANAGAR, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶31

3(e). ESHWARAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA RAYAR OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUNDAGOL, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI.VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) (R3a.(i) to R3.a(iv) and R3(b) to R3(e) – served)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.12.2017 BEARING NO.KLR/SR/37/155 KUNDAGOL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-N; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO CONFER OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS IN VIEW OF THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KUNDAGOL STATING THAT THE LAND IS A NONRESUMABLE LAND.

¶35

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Petitioners filed form No.7 before respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Kundagol, for grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.108 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas situated in Kundagol, Dharwad District. Before the Tribunal, the petitioners and respondents No.3(a)(i) to 3(a)(iv), and 3(b) to 3(e) filed compromise petition. Respondent No.2-Land Tribunal rejected the compromise petition as well as Form No.7 filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners and landlords are blood relatives. Hence, this writ petition.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the land owners, in fact, had filed an application under Section 14 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) for resumption of land. The said application came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad, by order dated 17.10.1968 vide Annexure-B, hence, it is implied that the petitioners were cultivating the land in question as tenants as on 01.03.1974. Learned counsel further submits that Land Tribunal has

¶40

¶41

erroneously rejected Form No.7 on the ground that the petitioners and the landlords are blood relatives. Hence, he prays for setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal.

¶42

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the order passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal rejecting Form No.7 is in accordance with law.

¶43

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶44

The petitioners filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal. The petitioners and the land owners of the land in question, so as to put a quietus to the long-standing dispute, arrived at a settlement and filed compromise petition. However, respondent No.2-Land Tribunal rejected the compromise petition as well as Form No.7 on the ground that the petitioners and the land owners are blood relatives and hence, the question of granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners does not arise.

¶45

¶46

Perusal of the records dated 17.10.1968 passed by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad, indicates that the land owners had filed an application under Section 14 of the Act for resumption of land. However, the said application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad and the same has attained finality. Hence, it is implied that the petitioners were cultivating the land in question as tenants as on 01.03.1974, in the absence of valid surrender as required under Section 14 of the Act. There is no embargo under the provisions contained in the Act, to grant occupancy rights in favour of the landlords and tenants who are blood relatives. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2-Land Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The respondents-land owners, though served, have remained unrepresented and have not controverted the petition averments. Hence, it is implied that the land owners have admitted tenancy in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land in question. Hence, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.12.2017 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-N is quashed.

¶49

¶50

ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to confer occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners in respect of land bearing Sy.No.108 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas situated at Kundagol, Kundgol Taluk, Dharwad District by collecting premium in accordance with the provisions of the Act and thereafter issue certificate in Form No.10.

¶51

Kms

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

Mahadevappa S/O Shivanna @ Shivappa Rayar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevappa S/O Shivanna @ Shivappa Rayar 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

New Secondary High School Bhoj Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. M. Anantharathna Vs the Technical Assistant to

N. Prathap Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

J Rajappa S/O. Kariayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Maruti S/O Yamanappa Appajappagol, Vs Sri.Shivanand Lakkappa Magadum

J. Rajappa S/O. Kariayappa Vs the State of Karnataka