Allowed

Bhima Kallappa Waghmode v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Oct 2022WP/14711/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed an order by the Land Tribunal. The Tribunal had granted occupancy rights under Form No.7 to a respondent's deceased father. The Court held the application was unmaintainable because the petitioner's absolute ownership via a compromise decree prior to the appointed date extinguished the landlord-tenant relationship.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 26.4.2005 is quashed, and the Form No.7 application is dismissed as not maintainable.

Bhima Kallappa Waghmode Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 14711 of 2005

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 14711 OF 2005 (LR-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BHIMA KALLAPPA WAGHMODE AGE 85 YEARS, AGRICULTURER/O.SHIVANUR 591304, ATHANI, DIST:BELGAUM.

¶9

Since deceased by his L.Rs.

¶10

1A. Smt. Parvati w/o Shrimant Roopanavar Age 70 years, Occ: Household work r/o Shivanur – 591 212. Taluka: Athani District : Belgaum.

¶11

1B. ShriMahadev Bhima Waghmode Age 68 years, Occ: Agriculture r/o Shivanur – 591 212. Taluka: Athani District : Belgaum.

¶12

1C. Smt. Kashibai w/o Dnyanadev Kolekar Age 65 years, Occ: Household work r/o Mole– 591 303. Taluka: Athani District : Belgaum.

¶13

1D. Shri Vittal Bhima Waghmode Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculture r/o Shivanur – 591 212. Taluka: Athani District : Belgaum.

¶14

1E. Shri Yashawant Bhima Waghmode Age 65 years, Occ: Agriculture r/o Shivanur – 591 212.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 14711 of 2005

¶17

Taluka: Athani District : Belgaum.

¶18

1F. Shri Maruti Bhima Waghmode Age 43 years, Occ: Agriculture r/o Shivanur – 591 212. Taluka: Athani District : Belgaum.

¶19

1G. Smt.Anasuya w/o Sidram Kolekar Age 38 years, Occ: Household r/o H.No.2391, Patil House Shaniwar Peth, Miraj 416410 Maharashtra State.

¶20

1H. Smt.Girijabai w/o Vasant Salagar Age 31 years, Occ: Household r/o Shivanur – 591 212. Taluka: Athani District : Belgaum.

¶21

(Amended v/c/o dated 28.6.2011)

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD.BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE560001

¶26

THE LAND TRIBUNAL ATHANI, BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATHANI 591 304, DIST: BELGAUM

¶27

APPANNA KALLAPPA WAGHMODE

¶28

¶29

WP No. 14711 of 2005

¶30

SINCE DECD BY HIS L.RS

¶31

3(a) SHRI ADASHIV APPANNA WAGHMODE, MAJOR, AGRICULTURE, R/O.SHIVANUR 591 304, ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶32

3(b) SHRI VASANT APPANNA WAGHMODE AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.SHIVANUR 591 304, ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM

¶33

3(c) SHRI KAREPPA APPANNA WAGHMODE AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O.SHIVANUR 591 304, TALUK ATHANI, DIST:BELGAUM

¶34

3(d) TUKARAM APPANNA WAGHMODE AGE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O.SHIVANUR 591 304, TALUK:ATHANI, DIST:BELGAUM

¶35

3(D)(a) Smt.Sanjeevini w/o Tukaram Waghmode Age 45 years, Occ: Household work r/o Shivanur – 591212, Taluka Athani District Belgaum. Now r/a c/o Dattu Roopannavar Taluka Atpadi, Distrct Sangli, Maharashtra.

¶36

3D(b) Smt.Vaishali w/o Shrikant Kharat Age 22 years, Occ: Household work r/o Guruwar Peth, Tasagaon 416412 District Sangli, Maharashtra.

¶37

3D(c) Shri Ariraj Tukaram Waghmode Age 24 years Occ: Agriculture r/o Shivanur – 591 212 Taluka Athani, District Belgaum Now r/a Dattu Roopannavar Taluka Atpadi, Distrct Sangli, Maharashtra.

¶38

(Amended v/c/o dated 17.1.2011)

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

¶41

WP No. 14711 of 2005

¶42

(BY SRI V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, Sri SARAD PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANGRAM S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(b)(1-3), R3C, R3D(A) & (B) & (C) SERVED/S/H/S)

¶43

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 26/4/2005 PASSED BY THE R2 / LAND TRIBUNAL ATHANI VIDE ANX. S.

¶44

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

The owner of the land being aggrieved by the order passed by the 2^nd respondent – Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in respect of half portion of land in Sy.No.96/2A measuring 9.00 acres 0.9 guntas has filed this petition.

¶47

Originally the land bearing Sy.No.96/2A belonged to one Jakka Gowda Lakshmana Patil. He filed a suit in OS No.118/1965 before the jurisdictional Civil Court for permanent injunction against the petitioners’ father and two other tenants restraining them from interfering with the subject land among other lands. The petitioners had claimed to be the tenants of the subject land and in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners’ father and the original owner, a compromise decree was drawn on 16.7.1965. As per the

¶48

¶49

WP No. 14711 of 2005

¶50

compromise decree, the petitioners and their father were permitted to retain the entire extent of subject land as absolute owners subject to payment of Rs.3,650/-. Thereafter, the compromise decree came to be registered on 1.10.1966 before the Sub-Registrar concerned.

¶51

When things stood thus, the deceased father of the 3^rd respondent filed an application in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy right to an extent of half share in the subject land. The order passed by the Land Tribunal was questioned before this Court and this Court on two occasions remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for reconsideration of Form No.7 submitted by the deceased father of respondent No.3 afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal by the impugned order granted the occupancy right to an extent of half portion in the subject land in favour of the 3^rd respondent stating that the subject land was cultivated by the petitioners and his father for and on behalf of the joint family consisting of petitioners and 3^rd respondent, against which, the present writ petition is filed.

¶52

¶53

WP No. 14711 of 2005

¶54

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the subject land is the absolute property of the petitioners and their father in the light of the compromise decree and the petitioners were not cultivating the subject land as tenant as on the appointed date and as such, Form No.7 filed by the 3^rd respondent was not maintainable since the original owner ceased to be the owner of the subject land as on the appointed date.

¶55

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submits that the subject land was a tenanted land and the petitioners and their father were cultivating the subject land as tenants for and on behalf of the joint family consisting of petitioners and the 3^rd respondent and the Land Tribunal has rightly granted the occupancy right for half portion of the subject land and the same does not warrant any interference. He further submits that neither the 3^rd respondent nor his father were parties to the compromise decree. Hence, the compromise decree is not binding.

¶56

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶57

counsel appearing for the parties.

¶58

¶59

WP No. 14711 of 2005

¶60

The petitioners and their father claimed to be

¶61

tenants of the subject land and since there was a dispute, the original owner filed the suit against the petitioners’ father and the said suit ended in a compromise and as per the terms of the compromise, the petitioners and their father were permitted to retain the entire extent of subject land as owners subject to payment of Rs.3,650/- to the original owner and subsequently, the compromise decree was registered before the Sub-Registrar concerned as specified under the provisions of the Registration Act. The compromise decree passed in favour of the petitioners and their father has attained finality and binding on the 3^rd respondent. The petitioners and their father ceased to be the tenants of the subject land in the light of the compromise decree and as such, the 3^rd respondent cannot claim to be the tenant of the original owner when he ceased to be the owner of the land and the ownership vested with the petitioners and their father. As on the appointed date 1.3.1974, there was no relationship of land lord and tenant between the 3^rd respondent and also the original owner who ceased to be the owner in the light of the compromise decree. Hence, Form No.7 filed by the deceased father of the 3^rd

¶62

¶63

WP No. 14711 of 2005

¶64

respondent in the absence of any relationship of landlord and tenant is not maintainable. The 3^rd respondent has not produced any material that the father of the petitioner was in cultivation of the subject land on behalf of the joint family as on the appointed date or prior to it. The Land Tribunal ignoring this material aspect has passed the impugned order and the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶67

ii) The impugned order dated 26.4.2005 passed by the 2^nd respondent at Annexure-S is hereby quashed and consequently, Form No.7 filed by the deceased father of the 3^rd respondent for grant of occupancy right is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

BKM

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 99

Bhima Kallappa Waghmode v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhima Kallappa Waghmode 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. Mahaveer S/O. Bharamu Chougala Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Suresh S/O Kalappa Kammar Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Adamsab S/O Ghudusab Tekadi Vs State of Karnataka

Subhash S/O. Rangappa Kolli Vs the Deputy Director of

Suresh S/O Ishwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O. Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri Vs the State of Karnataka