Allowed

A Sudhakara Rao v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2022WP/52748/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, allowing a writ petition, quashed an order by the Land Tribunal. It held that a second application in Form No.7 for occupancy rights is not maintainable under settled legal precedents, despite the petitioner's challenge to the Tribunal's rejection of an interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of Land Tribunal dated 05.08.2015 quashed; second Form No.7 application characterized as not maintainable.

A Sudhakara Rao Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 52748 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.52748 OF 2015 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

A SUDHAKARA RAO S/O LATE A GOPALA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶10

R/O GOVINDAPRASAD, AVARAL POST, VIA HEJAMADI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-574103

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI.S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

¶16

LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶17

SRI.RAVIKUMAR.K.A.S CHAIRMAN, LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101

¶18

GOPAL K SHETTY S/O LATE KITTA SHETTY,

¶19

¶20

WP No. 52748 of 2015

¶21

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O SINCHAN APARTMENTS, 4TH FLOOR, B-WING, VEERA DESAI ROAD, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400053

¶22

SMT.SUMATHI G SHETTY D/O LATE KITTA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O.A/102, BHAIRAV COMPLEX, STATION ROAD, NEAR H.M.THEATER, BHAVANDAR (WEST) MUMBAI-400053

¶23

SMT.BABY S SHETTY D/O LATE KITTA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O B/58, BUILDING NO.34 MAHISH NAGAR, 4 BUNGALOWS, J.P.ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400053

¶24

SHEKARA SHETTY S/O LATE KITTA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. A/12, RANJI NIVAS, MAHATHMA PHULE ROAD, VISHNU NAGAR, DOMBIVALI (WEST) THANE DISTRICT, MAHARASTRA STATE-421202

¶25

SMT.AMMANI J SHETTY D/O LATE KITTA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.D/409, VRINDAVAN SOCIETY, JEEVAN NAGAR, VEERA DESAI ROAD, ANDHERI(WEST) MUMBAI-400058

¶26

KARIYA K SHETTY S/O LATE KITTA SHETTY,

¶27

¶28

WP No. 52748 of 2015

¶29

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O PALLI NINJURU, POST PALLI-574244 KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT

¶30

SMT.SAVITA A SHETTY D/O LATE KITTA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.30, BHARATH NIVAS, PARMAR, GURUJI MARG, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012

¶31

JAGANNATH SHETTY S/O LATE BABU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O BOLINJE, AVARALU MATTU, POST: AVARALU, PALIMAR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-574103

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI.SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI HAREESH BHANDARY.T, ADV. FOR R11 R3 TO R4, R6 AND R10 HELD SUFFICIENT R5, 7, 8 AND 9 ARE SERVED)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL AT UDUPI VIDE ANN-Q DATED 5.8.2015 GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL AT UDUPI VIDE ANN-Q DATED 5.8.2015 .

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

WP No. 52748 of 2015

¶38

ORDER

¶39

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶40

The only legal contention that is raised at the hands of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a second application in Form No.7 is not permitted to be filed, in terms of several decisions of this Court, including the case of Giriyappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2000 (3) KLJ 70. Almost during the same time, in the case of Parameshwar Timmayya Hegde And Others Vs. Venkataraman Manjappa Hegde and Others (ILR 2000 KAR 3170), it was held that only a single application is permitted to be made seeking grant of occupancy rights in Form No.7 and a second application even in respect of some other lands which were not included in the first application is not permitted to be filed and the same is not maintainable.

¶41

The undisputed facts are that Sri Kitta Shetty, under whom the contesting respondents herein claim, filed Form No.7 on 23.09.1978. He had already filed Form No.7 on

¶42

¶43

WP No. 52748 of 2015

¶44

26.08.1974 and another Form No.7 was also filed on 05.11.1975. However, the second Form No.7 filed on 05.11.1975 was treated as amendment and in that regard, there is no dispute that both the applications were clubbed, heard together and disposed of by an order of the Tribunal on 31.05.1976. However, long after the order was passed by the Tribunal on 31.05.1976, Sri Kitta Shetty filed another application in Form No.7 on 23.09.1978 in respect of four pieces of property, which were not mentioned in the previous application made in Form No.7 on 26.08.1974/ 05.11.1975.

¶45

Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents is unable to controvert or point out to any other decisions by which the position of law reiterated in Giriyappa and Others (supra) has been diluted.

¶46

In that view of the matter, there is substance in

¶47

the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that although interlocutory application was filed at the hands of the petitioner herein before the Land

¶48

¶49

WP No. 52748 of 2015

¶50

Tribunal, bringing to its notice the decisions including Giriyappa and Others (supra), the Land Tribunal rejected the application.

¶51

In the light of the settled position of law as noticed hereinabove, the second application in Form No.7 filed by Kitta Shetty on 23.09.1978 before the Land Tribunal, Udupi, is required to be dismissed as not maintainable.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 05.08.2015 passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi, is hereby quashed and set aside, while allowing the application filed at the hands of the petitioner herein before the Land Tribunal and consequently, rejecting the application filed in Form No.7 at the hands of Sri Kitta Shetty on 23.09.1978, as not maintainable.

¶53

Ordered accordingly.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

JT/CT:JL

A Sudhakara Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Sudhakara Rao 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nataraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Muniyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Club Cabana Recreations Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Venkatamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. S Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka