Dismissed

Smt Emmy Juliana D'Souza v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2021WP/17584/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order granting occupancy rights to a predecessor and the Tribunal's confirmation of rejection of her application. Court held the claim was not maintainable as the predecessor already filed Form No. 7. Petitioner not directly challenging the original Assistant Commissioner order. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Smt Emmy Juliana D'Souza Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.17584/2021 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. EMMY JULIANA D'SOUZA W/O HENRY D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT KANA, IDDYA VILLAGE LAVANYA FARM SURATHAKAL POST MANGALORE TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 575 014. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. UDAYA SHANKAR RAI P., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶11

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY/ LAND TRIBUNAL MANGALORE TALUK TALUK OFFICE MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR MANGALORE TALUK

¶14

¶15

TALUK OFFICE MANGALORE

¶16

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶17

MR.LEO LOBO S.O JOHN LOBO AGE MAJOR R/AT KANA, IDDYA VILLAGE, SURATHAKAL MANGALORE TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 575 014.

¶18

MR. JOHN LOBO S/O F.L.T. LOBO AGE MAJOR R/AT KANA, IDDYA VILLAGE, SURATHAKAL MANGALORE TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 575 014.

¶19

MRS. POULIN PERIERA D/O LATE INAZ PERIERA AGE MAJOR, R/AT INDRAKATTA ROAD KANA, IDDYA VILLAGE, SURATHAKAL POST, MANGALORE TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 575 014. … RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORD IN LRT(2)NO.1103/1976-77 ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT - LAND TRIBUNAL, MANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.06.1977 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 20.06.1977 granting occupancy rights to the predecessor of the respondent No.6 concerning the land bearing Sy.No.20-1A of Iddya village, Mangalore Taluk measuring 1 Acre 35 Guntas. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 28.08.2020 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Appeal.No.802/2016, by which, the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner in Form No.7A was confirmed.

¶27

The petitioner claimed that she was a tenant under the father of the respondent No.6. She claimed that her father was cultivating the land in Sy.No.20/1A to an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas, which was leased to him by the father of the respondent No.6. She claimed that after the death of her father, she inherited the tenancy and filed Form No.7A under Rule 26-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 were

¶28

¶29

notified but were placed exparte. She claimed that respondent No.2 without conducting a proper enquiry, rejected the application in terms of the order dated 14.08.2013. An appeal preferred belatedly by her before the Tribunal in Appeal.No.802/2016 was also rejected as the application for condonation of delay was rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has not only challenged the order of the respondent No.2 granting occupancy rights to the predecessor of respondent No.6 but also the order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.802/2016.

¶30

The petitioner contended that she was surprised

¶31

to find that the father of respondent No.6 had filed form No.7 before the respondent No.2 in respect of various land including the land in Sy.No.20-1A and that the land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in his favour on 20.06.1978. The petitioner claimed that she was cultivating the land as a sub-tenant and therefore, it was she who was actually cultivating the land as a tenant. The learned counsel for the

¶32

¶33

petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a deemed tenant and was therefore, entitled to be registered as an occupant under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶34

Per contra, learned Government Advocate submitted that Section 77A was introduced in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 so as to enable the tenants who were cultivating the land as on 01.03.1974 and who had not filed applications in Form No.7 within the prescribed time, to seek conferment of occupancy rights. He submitted that the petitioner did not dispute the fact that it was the predecessor of respondent No.6, who had filed Form No.7 and the land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights to him. He submitted that on this short ground alone, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable.

¶35

The contention of the petitioner that she was a sub-tenant under the predecessor of respondent No.6 and was therefore, a deemed tenant cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as on 01.03.1974, the land bearing

¶36

¶37

Sy.No.20-1A did not belong to the predecessor of respondent No.6. As a matter of fact, it is predecessor of respondent No.6, who was a deemed tenant and not the petitioner herein. Since the land in question was already the subject matter of a claim in Form No.7 by the predecessor of respondent No.6, the petitioner could not have invoked Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and could not have filed Form 7A seeking occupancy rights.

¶38

The petitioner is also not entitled to any relief in the writ petition as she has not challenged the original order passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting her application in Form No.7A but has only challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.802/2016.

¶39

The respondent No.2 as well as the Tribunal have considered the same and have rightly rejected it. There is no merit in this writ petition. Hence, the same is

¶40

dismissed .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Np/-

Smt Emmy Juliana D'Souza v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Emmy Juliana D'Souza 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

Sri. Shivanna Vs Sri. Sannaputtappa

Srinivasa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sharadamma Vs Sri Hanumanthe Gowda

Sri.K.Chinnaswamy Vs Smt. Veni Nagaraj

Sri Bhojappa Vs State of Karnataka

J C Badappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner