Dismissed

Shri Siddappa S/O Bhimappa Sanadi v. the Land Tribunal Belgaum

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2022WP/8546/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed this writ petition challenging an order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on tenants. Upholding the Tribunal's view that the lease was valid and tenants were in cultivation on the relevant date, the Court held the tenants are entitled to occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order of Land Tribunal upheld; occupancy rights confirmed.

Shri Siddappa S/O Bhimappa Sanadi Vs the Land Tribunal… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No.8546 of 2007

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 8546 OF 2007 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2022.09.05
09:43:10
+0530

¶10

SHRI SIDDAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA SANADI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶11

SHRI RAMACHANDRA BHIMAPPA SANADI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. ANANDAWWA W/O. YALLAPPA BOMBRI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. FAKIRAWWA W/O. BALAPPA BOMBRI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE R/O.: HOUSE NO. 185, PATIL GALLI, BELGAUM.

¶15

… PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SHRI HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BELGAUM DISTRICT.

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

¶20

¶21

WP No.8546 of 2007

¶22

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

¶23

SMT. YASHODA BAI W/O. LAXMAN HOSURKAR, MAJOR,

¶24

SHRI MANOHAR S/O. LAXMAN HOSURKAR, MAJOR,

¶25

SHRI SUBHASH S/O. LAXMAN HOSURKAR, MAJOR,

¶26

SHRI MALLAPPA S/O. LAXMAN HOSURKAR, MAJOR,

¶27

SMT. RENUKA W/O. ASHOK HOSURKAR, MAJOR,

¶28

SHRI KEDARI S/O. MARUTI HOSURKAR, MAJOR,

¶29

SHRI SHIRISH S/O. YALLAPPA HOSURKAR, MAJOR,

¶30

ALL ARE R/O.: HOUSE NO. 252, KORAVI GALLI, BELGAUM.

¶31

… RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SHRI VINAYAK S.KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SHRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R9; RESPONDENT NO.3 – ABATED)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-H, THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2006, PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

WP No.8546 of 2007

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

Aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2006, passed in Belagavi NR-194, by the Land Tribunal, Belagavi, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶39

The petitioners are said to be the legal heirs of the landlord of the lands, which are the subject matter of the writ petition and respondent Nos.3 to 9 are said to be the tenants. The lands, which are the subject matter of the writ petition, are as follows:

¶40

I. 37 guntas in Sy. No. 487/1, Belagavi. II. 26 guntas in Sy. No. 487/2, Belagavi.

¶41

The petitioners were allotted the lands in question under the Provisions of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 (for short “the Act, 1874” ) in the year 1934. There was a bar on leasing the said lands. In spite of it, the forefather of the petitioners leased the same in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9. After Independence and State Reorganization, it is submitted that the lands were regranted to the forefather of the petitioners in the

¶42

¶43

WP No.8546 of 2007

¶44

year 1968. Thereafter, the petitioners renewed the lease to the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9. As on 01.03.1974, the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 was in cultivation of the said lands. On the ground that he was tilling the lands on the relevant date, the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 filed Form No.7 and sought for occupancy rights. This resulted in several proceedings before the Tribunal as well as before this Court and in W.P. No.4393/1998, this Court come to the conclusion that the forefather of the respondent Nos.3 to 9 was cultivating the lands in question, which are Sanadi Inam Lands and the same was leased by the forefather of the petitioners to the forefather of respondents 3 to 9 herein and the forefather of respondents 3 to 9 filed Form No.7. The fact that the lands were leased in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 and that they were in cultivation of the lands on the relevant date has been upheld by this Court in W.P. No.4393/1998. However, on the issue whether the lease was validly granted in favour of the tenant, the matter was remanded

¶45

¶46

WP No.8546 of 2007

¶47

back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties concerned has come to the conclusion that the tenancy in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 is valid in law and has conferred occupancy rights on respondent Nos.3 to 9 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶48

The case of the petitioners is that the lands were allotted to their forefather under the provisions of the Act, 1874 and the lease granted in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 was in contravention of the said enactment and the lease could not have been held as valid in law. On the said ground, it is contended that the tenancy was illegal and respondent Nos.3 to 9 cannot be considered as tenants and cannot be granted occupancy rights. However, the petitioners admit that though the lands were initially granted under the provisions of the Act, 1874 , after Independence and reorganization of the State, the lands have been re-granted to him in the year 1968 and it is also admitted that even thereafter, the forefather of

¶49

¶50

WP No.8546 of 2007

¶51

respondent Nos.3 to 9 continued as tenants. It is not the case of the petitioners that tenancy after 1968, was illegal.

¶52

Sections 44(1), 44(2), 44(2)(a) and 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, read as under:

¶53

“44. Vesting of lands in the State Government.— (1) All lands held by or in the possession of tenants (including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction or a certificate for resumption is made or issued) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under section 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government.

¶54

(2) Notwithstanding anything in any decree or order of or certificate issued by any Court or authority directing or specifying the lands which may be resumed or in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensue, namely:—

¶55

(a) all rights, title and interest vesting in the owners of such lands and other persons

¶56

¶57

WP No.8546 of 2007

¶58

interested in such lands shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances;

¶59

45. Tenants to be registered as

¶60

occupants of land on certain conditions.— (1) Subject to the provisions of the succeeding sections of this Chapter, every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant has lawfully sub-let, such subtenant shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of the lands of which he was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or subtenant before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally.

¶61

(2) If a tenant or other person referred to in sub-section (1).—

¶62

(i) holds land partly as owner and partly as tenant but the area of the land held by him as owner is equal to or exceeds a ceiling area he shall not been entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land held by him as a tenant before the date of vesting;

¶63

¶64

WP No.8546 of 2007

¶65

(ii) does not hold and cultivate personally any land as an owner, but holds land as tenant, which he cultivates personally in excess of a ceiling area, he shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant to the extent of a ceiling area;

¶66

(iii) holds and cultivates personally as an owner of any land the area of which is less than a ceiling area, he shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant to the extent of such area as will be sufficient to make up his holding to the extent of a ceiling area.

¶67

(3) The land held by a [person] before the date of vesting and in respect of which he is not entitled to be registered as an occupant under this section shall be disposed of in the manner provided in section 77 [after evicting such person.]”

¶68

It is not the case of the petitioners that there was a

¶69

bar to continue the tenancy after re-grant. Admittedly as on the relevant date, the lands concerned were leased in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 and were not being cultivated by the forefather of petitioners herein.

¶70

¶71

WP No.8546 of 2007

¶72

Hence, as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the lands vested in the State Government and upon filing of Form No.7 by the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9, the tenancy right has been conferred in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 9. The Tribunal upon remand of the matter by this Court in W.P. No.4393/1998 has considered the matter and has come to the conclusion that there was no illegality and the lands being leased in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 9 and it has found him to be in occupation of the said lands and the right of occupancy has been conferred. There is no material to the contrary produced by the petitioners herein and I do not find any error in the order passed by the Land Tribunal.

¶73

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Vnp* List No.: 1, Sl No.: 37

Shri Siddappa S/O Bhimappa Sanadi v. the Land Tribunal Belgaum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Siddappa S/O Bhimappa Sanadi v. the Land Tribunal Belgaum

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 G H Sreedhara Vs State of Karnataka

The Adigond Tribal and Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Rayappa S/O Dundappa Badiger Vs Daneshwari Vividdodeshagala Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha Hukkeri

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

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

Venkatesh Alias Vijayarao Desai Vs the State of Karnataka