Dismissed

Smt Harini D Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2022WP/32786/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for occupancy rights. The Court found the petition devoid of merits, citing lack of occupancy claim, widow's admission of non-tenancy, record evidence, and the presumption of untilled status for 'Punja land' as supported by precedent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with costs having been made easy.

Smt Harini D Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.32786 OF 2012(LR-SEC 48A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. HARINI D. SHETTY, W/O SRI. DIVAKARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT “SRI RAKSHA” BEHIND TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, SHIRVA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

THE ADDL. LAND TRIBUNAL (KAUP HOBLI), UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI-576 101. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

SMT. SANJEEVI HEGGADATHI, W/O SRI. H ANANDA SHETTY, AGED MAJOR, R/AT “NYARMA HOSAMANE”, SHIRVA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT – 576 101.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. V SHESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. AJITH A SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 LAND TRIBUNAL, IN SO FAR AS REJECTING TO CONFER OCCUPANCY RIGHT ON THE LANDS SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE HEREIN IN BELOW IN FAVOUR OF THE

¶18

¶19

APPLICANTS INCLUDING THE PETITIONER, TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing Land Tribunal Order dated 27.12.2011 whereby the claim for grant of occupancy has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that this rejection could not have been made without notice to his client i.e., one of the daughters of Mr. Yadu

¶23

Sehtty who had field Form No.7 claiming occupancy in respect of subject land in Sy.No.308/14 of Shirva Village, Udupi Taluk.

¶24

After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their advocates, oppose the writ petition contending that in respect of land in Sy. No.262/p there was no claim for occupancy at all. In respect of land in Sy.No.308/14, though form No.7 was filed, the widow of the original applicant had specifically stated before the Land Tribunal on 15.09.1981 to the effect that the said land was not tenanted. Although the earlier order having been set

¶25

¶26

aside, the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for consideration afresh. He adds that this evidence will continue to be a part of the record, the said record having not been set at naught by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.28394/1997 c/w W.P.No.43543/2001 disposed off on 23.02.2006. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶28

parties and having perused the petition papers this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as:

¶29

(a) In respect of land in Sy. No.262/p, there was no claim for grant of occupancy at all and therefore, order of the Land Tribunal rejecting the claim cannot be faltered.

¶30

(b) In respect of land in Sy.No.308/14, although there was an application in Form No.7 by the deceased husband his widow Smt. Girija Shetty, admits to the effect that her husband was not the tenant in respect of this land either. This apart, the ‘Chalageni Chit’ dated 27.09.1964 which are part of the record before the Land Tribunal, coupled with entries in the Record of Rights do

¶31

¶32

not support the claim of the petitioner that the subject land was tenanted as on 01.03.1974.

¶33

(c) There is also force in the vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the Landlady that the subject land being a “Punja land”, does not figure to be tenanted in the records and that there is a presumption that such lands are ordinarily treated as untilled unless they are otherwise brought under cultivation. This view gains support by the Apex Court decision in SUBHAKAR & OTHERS Vs. HARIDEESH KUMAR & OTHERS., (2007) 2 KCCR 1393.

¶34

In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Bsv

Smt Harini D Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Harini D Shetty 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B L Shankarappa Vs Federation of Karnataka Chambers

Mr Mohamed Naveedulla Ataulla Vs Union of India

Smt Ashwathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Purushothamareddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Basava Poojary Vs State of Karnataka

G Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka