Dismissed

Sri.Maruti Pondu Gavada @ Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022WP/110232/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the Land Tribunal's grant of occupancy rights. The court upheld the Tribunal's order finding that land was cultivated by the family and Form No.7 was filed on behalf of all brothers.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Land Tribunal is dismissed.

Sri.Maruti Pondu Gavada @ Patil Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 110232 OF 2019 (LR-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.MARUTI PONDU GAVADA @ PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

¶9

A. SRI. PUNDALIK MARUTI GAVADA @ PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶10

SRI.RAJU, S/O PUNDALIK GAVADA @ PATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

SRI.MARUTI, S/O PUNDALIK GAVADA @ PATIL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

SRI.NAMADEV, S/O MARUTI GAVADA @ PATIL, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶13

SRI.PARASHRAM, S/O MARUTI GAVADA @ PATIL, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

SRI.HONNAPPA, S/O MARUTI GAVADA @ PATIL,

¶15

¶16

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶17

AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. H M DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALURU-560001.

¶22

THE LAND TRIBUNAL REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, KHANAPUR TALUK KHANAPUR, DISTRICT BELAGAVI.

¶23

THE TAHASILDAR KHANAPUR TALUK KHANAPUR, DISTRICT BELAGAVI.

¶24

SRI.NARAYAN NARASAPPA GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶25

(DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2019)

¶26

SRI.AMRUT NARASAPPA GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶27

(DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 10.10.2019)

¶28

¶29

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶30

SRI.APPAJI NARASAPPA GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶31

SRI.KALLAPPA NARASAPPA GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶32

LAXMAN PONDU NARASAPPA GAVADA @ PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs, 8. SRI.SHIVAJI S/O LAXMAN GAVADA @ PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶33

RAYAPPA LAXMAN GAVADA @ PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs,

¶34

SMT.SAVITRI RAYAPPA GAVADA @ PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶35

SMT.LATHA GOPAL GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶38

SMT.GEETA TUKARAM GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶39

BABU PONDU GAVADA @ PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, SRI SHIVAJI BABU GAVADA @ PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶40

SMT.LAXMI VITTAL GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶41

SMT.NANDA PANDURANG GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶42

SMT.JEEVAKKA KALLAPPA GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶43

PANDURANG PANDU @ PONDU GAVADA @ PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶44

¶45

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶46

SRI TUKARAM PANDURANG GAVADA @ PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶47

SMT.VITTUBAI PANDURANG GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶48

SRI.JYANESHWAR @ DAYANAND PANDURANG GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶49

SRI.PONDAPPA PANDURANG GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶50

SRI.KRISHANAJI PANDURANG GAVADA @ PATIL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: GARBENHATTI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶51

SADASHIVA VISHNU BONDRE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶52

¶53

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶54

SMT.VIJAYA SADASHIV BONDRE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BATTIGALLI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶55

KUMARI DURGA SADASHIV BONDRE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BATTIGALLI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶56

SRI.ANANT SADASHIV BONDRE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BATTIGALLI VILLAGE, POST: KASABA-NANDGADA, TALUK: KHANAPUR, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI. R M HIREMATH and S K NADAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R15; SRI. VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. PRASAD KUMAR GUNAKI, ADVOCATE FOR R16 TO R20; R4 & R5 – DELETED; R6, R7, R21 & R23 – SERVED; R22 – DISPENSED WITH)

¶59

¶60

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.03.2018 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER NO.KLR/O.C.P.S.R/ 35+41/K.NANDAGAD KHANAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE-K.

¶61

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶62

¶63

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶64

ORDER

¶65

Aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2018 bearing No.KLR/ O.C.P.S.R/35+41/K passed by the Land Tribunal, Khanapur, vide Annexure-K to the writ petition, the instant writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of one of the claimants therein.

¶66

The case of the petitioners is that, their forefather Maruti Pondu Gavada @ Patil alone had filed Form No.7 to an extent of 7 acres 6 guntas of land in survey No.121, 01 acre 09 guntas of land in survey No.106 and 15 acres 30 guntas of land in survey No.83 of Kasaba-Nandagad village and the forefather of respondents No.6 and 7 had filed Form No.7 for the balance 03 acres 06 guntas of land in survey No.121. According to the petitioners, after the demise of their forefather Maruti Pondu Patil, the Land Tribunal ought to have granted occupancy rights in respect of the lands for which Maruti Pondu Patil had filed Form No.7 only in respect of his children, but instead, the Land Tribunal while accepting that Maruti Pondu Patil was a tenant in cultivation of the properties, has granted occupancy rights equally in favour of not only the children of Maruti Pondu Patil, but also to the

¶67

¶68

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶69

children of three other brothers of Maruti Pondu Patil. This according to the petitioners is erroneous and hence have filed the instant writ petition.

¶70

It is noticed from the impugned order that the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights for 02 acres 23 guntas of land in survey No.121 in favour of forefather of respondents No.6 and 7. The petitioners in the course of arguments submits they have no objection for the same. That apart, it is noticed that the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights over the rest of the land equally to the legal heirs of Maruti Pondu Patil and his three other brothers. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same.

¶71

The case of the petitioners is that, Maruti Pondu Patil alone filed Form No.7 and in the course of hearing, his brother Pandurang Pondu Patil has specifically stated that Maruti Pondu Patil and Pandurang Pondu Patil alone were tilling the land concerned and that there was a partition in the year 1951, by which the other two brothers Babu Pondu Patil and Laxman Pondu Patil had given up their rights over the

¶72

¶73

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶74

properties concerned. Based on the said submission, it is contended by the petitioners that the Tribunal ought to have conferred occupancy rights only on the legal heirs of Maruti Pandu Patil and no one else.

¶75

The advocate appearing for respondents No.16 to 20 submits, they are the legal heirs of Pandurang Pondu Patil and that occupancy rights ought to have been granted equally between the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Maruti Pondu Patil and respondents No.16 to 20, who are the legal heirs of Pandurang Pondu Patil and not in favour of the children of Laxman Pondu Patil and Babu Pondu Patil and prays for modification of the Tribunal’s order to that effect.

¶76

Respondents No.8 to 15 who are the legal representatives of Laxman Pondu Patil and Babu Pondu Patil justifies the order passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶77

Respondents No.21 to 23 are the legal heirs of the owners, who are not disputing the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶78

10 -

¶79

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶80

Learned AGA justifies the order passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶81

The Form No.7 filed by Maruti Pondu Patil reveals that the lands in Survey Nos.121 and 106 were being tilled together by Maruti Pondu Patil and his brother Pandurang Pondu Patil. It further reveals that the revenue documents regarding survey No.83 shows their father to be the tenant. The deposition of parties concerned before the Tribunal reveals that the entire lands concerned were being tilled by the family of the father of Maruti Pondu Patil and after his death, Maruti Pondu Patil being the eldest has filed Form No.7. Pandurang Pondu Patil has further deposed that there was partition in the year 1951 amongst the brothers which divested Babu Pondu Patil and Laxman Pondu Patil from their rights over the land. The deposition when considered in its entirety, shows that all the properties concerned were being cultivated by the father of Maruti Pondu Patil and after his demise, Maruti Pondu Patil filed Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. Though it is claimed by the petitioners and respondents No.16 to 20 that there was a family partition in

¶82

11 -

¶83

WP No. 110232 of 2019

¶84

the year 1951, resulting in Babu Pondu Patil and Laxman Pondu Patil losing all the rights over the property, no document is produced to prove the same. The Tribunal has given a specific finding regarding this and it is observed that, though such a contention is taken by Pandurang Pondu Patil, no document to that effect has been produced. Based upon the contention of the parties, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the land was being cultivated by the forefather of Maruti Pondu Patil and Maruti Pondu Patil has filed Form No.7 on behalf of the entire family and accordingly, has granted occupancy rights equally to the legal heirs of all the four brothers. I do not find any error in the well reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly

¶85

the writ petition is dismissed.

¶86

Sd/JUDGE

¶87

gab List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Sri.Maruti Pondu Gavada @ Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Maruti Pondu Gavada @ Patil 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

Shri Siddappa S/O Bhimappa Sanadi Vs the Land Tribunal Belgaum

Smt. Indumati W/O Annasaheb Khemalapure Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Indumati W/O Annasaheb Khemalapure Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sobati Avappa Alias Havappa S/O Parasappa Alias Peerappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Darupati D/O. Fakirappa Matf Vs Women and Child Welfare Dept.

B. T. Bandiwaddar Vs the State of Karnataka