Allowed

Shri Raghupathi Naidu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2022WP/47145/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Land Tribunal order granting the tenant occupancy rights. The High Court quashed the Tribunal order for misapprehending material evidence, wrongly placing onus on the landlord, and ignoring facts regarding tree planting and tax receipts. Matter remitted for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights was quashed and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision within three months.

Shri Raghupathi Naidu Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

W.P.No.47145/2013 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . RAGHUPATHI NAIDU

¶9

(SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS,

¶10

1a. SRI.LOKESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶11

1b. SRI SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶12

1c . SRI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE SONS OF LATE RAGHUPATHI NAIDU, RESIDING AT:, NO.118, CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD, OPP:KAMAL LODGE, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶14

… PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI B.M.ARUN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001

¶18

¶19

2 . THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶20

3 . SRI. THAMMANNA S/O LATE BANDI MUNISHAMAPPA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, HIS FIRST WIFE KEMPAMMA WHO WAS ALSO EXPIRED SUBSEQUENTLY)

¶21

3 (i) SMT NANJAMMA W/O LATE THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

¶22

3 (ii) SRI P.MUNEGOWDA S/O LATE THAMMANNA, (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS.

¶23

(a) SMT.ANNAPOORNA W/O LATE MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶24

(b) SRI.TEJAS S/O LATE MUNEGOWDA (MINOR), AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶25

¶26

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KUDUREGERE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110 BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶27

… RESPONDENTS

¶28

¶29

(BY SRI SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 & R2 V/O. DATED 23.03.2016, NOTICE TO R3(i), R3(ii) (a), R3(ii)(b) & R3(ii)(c) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶30

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DT: 31.01.2013, PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL IN NO.LRF 3/1978-79 C/W NO.LRF.210/2010-11, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE AFORESAID WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The landlord has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, by which, the tenant had been conferred occupancy rights.

¶34

The Land Tribunal, in the impugned order, has noticed that revenue entries were not made available as on 01.03.1974. It is, however, noticed that the name of the landlord Sri Raghupathi Naidu was found in the pahanis since 1975-76. The Land Tribunal took the view that the tenant was cultivating the land and was, therefore, entitled to be conferred with occupancy rights. The Tribunal has relied upon the statement of the tenant’s uncle in the earlier round

¶35

¶36

of litigation to come to the conclusion that the land was cultivated by the tenant and the Tribunal has placed reliance upon the evidence of the independent witnesses K.S.Rama Rao and Aswath, the owners of the adjacent land to come to the conclusion that Thammannappa was cultivating the land in question.

¶37

The Tribunal has observed that from the evidence elicited from the respondents themselves (landlord) and their witnesses, it was not denied that the tenant was not in possession of the land in question and he had harvested the crops and trees standing on the land.

¶38

The Tribunal has, however, totally ignored the documents produced by the landlord indicating his exercise of ownership. The Tribunal has not considered the receipt patta which was produced as Ex.R4 and also the tax paid receipt which was produced as Ex.R5, which all indicated that the landlord was paying kandaya . It is also not in dispute that the land in question was granted to Raghupathi Naidu, the landlord as he was a Freedom Fighter and Political Sufferer.

¶39

¶40

It may be pertinent to state here that admittedly there was no revenue entry standing as on 01.03.1974 indicating that the tenant was in possession of the land in question.

¶41

One T.P.Chikkegowda was examined on behalf of the tenant as P.W.1. He stated as follows in his crossexamination:

¶42

ºÉÆÃgÁlUÁgÀgÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.55gÀ°è 7-00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:12.3.1956gÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÁUÀÄªÀ½ aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. gÀWÀÄ¥Àw £ÁAiÀÄÄØgÀªÀgÀÄ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀªÉðªÀÄgÀ, ¤Ã®Vj VqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉnÖzÀÝgÀÄ JA§ÄzÀÄ ¤d. gÀWÀÄ¥Àw £ÁAiÀÄÄØgÀªÀjUÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ SÁvÉ, PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀUÉÊgÉ DVvÉÛA§ÄzÀÄ ¤d.”

¶43

As could be seen from the said deposition, the witness admitted that after the issuance of the saguvali chit, Raghupathi Naidu had planted casuarina and eucalyptus trees on the land in question. Since it was admitted by the witness of the tenant that the land in question was granted to Raghupathi Naidu in the year 1956 and that casuarina and eucalyptus trees had been planted by Raghupathi Naidu, the

¶44

¶45

observation of the Tribunal that the witnesses of the landlord had admitted the possession cannot be accepted.

¶46

It is also to be noticed here that another witness T.K.

¶47

Muniyappa (P.W.2) stated as follows in the course of his cross-examination:

¶48

d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 77.14 d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÁzÀ §Ar

¶49

PÉA¥ÀtÚgÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄªÀÅzÀPÉÌ F d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ D¹Û DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”

¶50

This deposition indicates that the family of Bandi

¶51

Kempanna possessed 77 acres 14 guntas in Tarahunase village and Kuduregere Village. The witness also states that the said land were joint family properties. Admittedly, Thammannappa is the brother’s son of Bandi Kempanna and since it is admitted that the joint family possessed 77.14 acres by P.W.2, the Land Tribunal ought to have considered this issue before passing the impugned order. However, the Land Tribunal has failed to consider the statement of P.W.1

¶52

that casuarina and eucalyptus trees were planted by the landlord Raghupathi Naidu and also the tax paid receipts

¶53

¶54

produced of the year 1965-66 onwards, which indicated the exercise of ownership rights by Raghupathi Naidu and therefore, the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained.

¶55

It is to be stated here that the order of the Land Tribunal is fundamentally based on surmises and conjectures and the onus of proof was wrongly placed on the landlord. It is also to be stated here that the witness on behalf of the tenant himself admitted that the joint family of Bandi Kempanna possessed 77.14 acres in Tarahunase and Kuduregere Village and this aspect of the matter was also ignored by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence. The said order is accordingly quashed.

¶56

The matter shall stand remitted to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal shall consider the evidence adduced by P.W.1 which was to the effect that casuarina and eucalyptus trees were planted by the landlord, and it shall also take into consideration the kandaya receipts which have been produced which clearly indicate the exercise of ownership and the utilization of land by the owner of the land and.

¶57

¶58

The Land Tribunal shall, in addition, consider as to whether the applicant could claim the land in question in the light of the admission of his own witness that the joint family of Bandi Kempanna possessed 77.14 acres of land.

¶59

The Land Tribunal shall take into consideration only these three aspects and pass an order afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶60

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed .

¶61

SD/JUDGE

¶62

PKS CT:AN

Shri Raghupathi Naidu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Raghupathi Naidu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N a Prasanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Susheela Vs State of Karnataka

Padmanabha Naik Vs the Land Tribunal

Smt B Mangalagowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shanthilal Mutha Vs the Special Deputy COMMISSIONER-1

Sri Venkataramana Temple Vs Subraya Hegde & Ors.