Allowed

M Rama Reddy v. the Land Tribunal

Karnataka HC2 Jan 2023WA/3933/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court writ appeal assailed an order allowing a belated writ petition challenging a land occupancy grant. The High Court upheld the dismissal appeal, ruling that the Single Judge erred in entertaining a petition filed after a 24-year delay involving the deceased landlord's successors without satisfactory explanation.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the Single Judge in W.P. No. 12686/2005 is set aside.

M Rama Reddy Vs the Land Tribunal — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.3933/2012(LR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M. RAMA REDDY S/O MUNISHYAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS RESIDING AT HULLAHALLI JIGANI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE. ...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV., A/W SRI S. LAKSHMINARAYANA RDDY, ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE LAND TRIBUNAL ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

SHIR MUNIRAMA REDDY S/O BASAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶15

2(A). SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶16

2(B). SMT. MALA D/O LATE MUIRAMA REDDY W/O BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶17

¶18

2(C). SMT. ROOPA

¶19

D/O LATE MUNIRAMA REDDY W/O VIJAY KUMAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶21

2(D). SMT. DEEPA D/O LATE MUNIRAMA REDDY W/O SHIVA PRASAD REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶22

ALL ARE RESIDING AT RUPENA AGRAHARA, MADIWALA POST BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU.

¶23

SHRI BYRAPPA REDDY S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT RUPENA AGRAHARA MADIWALA (POST) BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA., FOR R- SRI G.KRISHNA MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI JANARDHANA G, ADV., FOR R-3; SRI SRIHARI A.V, ADV., FOR R-2 V/O DATED 17.11.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2(A-D) IS ACCEPTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.12686/2005(LR) DATED 11.06.2012.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order

¶29

dated 11.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of

¶30

this Court in W.P.No.12686/2005.

¶31

¶32

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶33

Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records that may be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the appellant herein had filed Form no.7 claiming occupancy rights of the land bearing Sy. No.234 measuring 1 acre and Sy. No.235 measuring 15 guntas situated at Hullahalli, Jigani Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District (hereinafter referred to as 'the lands in question'), and respondent no.1 by order dated 30.10.1981 had granted occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of the appellant. The father of respondent nos.2 & 3 herein viz., late Basappa who was the owner of the lands in question had participated in the enquiry proceedings before the Land Tribunal. However, he had not challenged the order dated 30.10.1981 under which occupancy rights of the lands in question was granted to the appellant. The said order was belatedly challenged by respondent no.3 herein before the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12686/2005

¶34

¶35

contending that the lands in question was allotted to him in a family partition and without hearing him, the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of the appellant. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal to hold a fresh enquiry and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court.

¶36

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the writ petition was filed belatedly after an inordinate delay of 24 years and though there is no proper and satisfactory explanation offered to the said inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has entertained the writ petition. He submits that Basappa - father of respondent nos.2 & 3 who was the original landlord had participated in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and he had not chosen to challenge the order dated 30.10.1981 during his lifetime. He also submits that the aforesaid Basappa died in the year 2008 and as on the

¶37

¶38

date of filing the writ petition, he was alive and he was not even impleaded as a party in the writ petition.

¶39

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the lands in question were allotted to the share of respondent no.3 in a family partition much earlier to the order dated 30.10.1981, and therefore, he was a necessary party before the Land Tribunal. He submits that the Land Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the evidence led on behalf of the landlord late Basappa. He also submits that the order of the Land Tribunal is not a speaking order and no proper reasoning has been assigned for granting occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of the appellant. He submits that the Land Tribunal has not held the enquiry as required under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules'), and in support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M.R.NANJUNDA SETTY VS LAND TRIBUNAL, SOMWARPET TALUK &

¶40

ANOTHER - AIR 1978 KAR 86 .

¶41

¶42

The material on record would go to show that

¶43

the father of respondent nos.2 & 3 herein viz., late Basappa who was served with the notice in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, had appeared before the Land Tribunal and contested the claim made by the appellant. He also had led evidence on his behalf and examined himself and another witness before the Land Tribunal in support of his case. The Land Tribunal, thereafter, vide the order dated 30.10.1981 had granted occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of the appellant. The said order was not questioned by late Basappa who is the father of respondent nos.2 & 3 herein during his lifetime. Basappa died on 17.07.2008. Though respondent no.3 herein has contended in the writ petition that his father had not contested the case and had not given any statement before the Land Tribunal, the material on record would go to show that late Basappa had contested the claim of the appellant and also had led evidence before the Land Tribunal.

¶44

The material on record would also go to show

¶45

that the appellant had applied for the certified copy of

¶46

¶47

the order dated 30.10.1981 and the same was obtained on 16.05.1998. However, the writ petition is filed in the year 2005. There is no proper explanation even for the delay of nearly 7 years in filing the writ petition after obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 30.10.1981. In addition to the same, the father of respondent nos.2 & 3 herein who had contested the claim of the appellant before the Land Tribunal had not chosen to challenge the order dated 30.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal during his lifetime, and undisputedly, the writ petition has been filed by respondent no.3 herein during the lifetime of his father late Basappa and late Basappa has not been arrayed as party to the writ petition.

¶48

The writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of 24 years and the petitioner in the writ petition had failed to offer proper and satisfactory explanation for the said inordinate delay of 24 years in filing the writ petition. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was not justified in entertaining the writ petition which

¶49

¶50

was filed after a delay of 24 years from the date of the order passed by the Land Tribunal.

¶51

The question whether the Land Tribunal has passed the order in compliance of Rule 17 of the Rules and whether the order passed by the Land Tribunal is a speaking order or not, etc., cannot be considered in a writ petition which is filed after an inordinate delay of 24 years, more so when no proper and satisfactory reasons have been offered explaining the said inordinate delay of 24 years. Under the circumstances, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.3 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶52

We are of the considered view that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. Accordingly, the following order:

¶53

¶54

The writ appeal is allowed. The order dated

¶55

11.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12686/2005, is set aside.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

M Rama Reddy v. the Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Rama Reddy v. the Land Tribunal

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

H S Kumar Vs C S Usharani

Smt. Chandamma Shedthi Vs State of Karnataka

Jareen Taj Vs Shaik Masthan

Sri Krishnaiah Vs the Chief Excutive Officer

Chief Executive Officer Vs S Krishnaiah

The Managing Director Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Vs Narasimhappa G