Dismissed

Siddamma v. Nanje Gowda

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2023WA/6940/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's order that set aside the Land Tribunal's rejection of a tenant's Form 7 occupancy rights claim. Relying on revenue record entries and spot inspections, the Court found no infirmity in the Single Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed; the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.04.2017 stands.

Siddamma Vs Nanje Gowda — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19961-DB WA No. 6940 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT APPEAL NO. 6940 OF 2017 (LR-SEC 48)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SIDDAMMA, W/O LATE G.B. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT, (R-2 DECEASED AND R3 TO R6 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R2 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED: 15.11.2011)

¶11

G.K.DHRUVA KUMAR, S/O LATE G.B.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, K.H.B COLONY, GUBBI TUMKUR DISTRICT : 572216.

¶12

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT PREMA, D/O LATE G B KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, TURUVEKERE - 572 221, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶15

SMT GOWRAMMA, D/O LATE G B KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, KANAKAPURA TOWN - 562117, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶16

SMT JAYARATHNAMMA, D/O LATE G B KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.2, 2^ND CROSS, DOMMALUR,

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:19961-DB WA No. 6940 of 2017

¶18

BENGALURU - 560038.

¶19

SMT G K HEMAVATHI, D/O LATE G B KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SHADAKSHARI MATTA, VIDYANAGAR, TIPUTUR: 572201.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI VASANTH MADHAV S, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

NANJE GOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY SMT T N SUWARNAMMA, D/O LATE NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572221, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶24

LAND TRIBUNAL, TURUVEKERE - 572221, TUMKUR TALUK, BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA FOR R2, V/O/DT 29.05.2023 NOTICE TO R1 SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.17905/2011 [LR-SEC 48-A] DATED 24/04/2017 BY REJECTING THE FORM NO.7 FILED BY THE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1. BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL/THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 23.03.2011 IN RESPECT OF LANDS IN SURVEY NO.34 OF HALUGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT.

¶28

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:19961-DB WA No. 6940 of 2017

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Sri Vasanth Madhav S., learned counsel for the appellant. Smt Namitha Mahesh B G, learned AGA for respondent No.2.

¶33

This intra Court appeal is filed against the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which in a Writ Petition preferred by respondent No.1 of this appeal, the order of the land tribunal dated 23.03.2011 has been quashed and the Land Tribunal has been directed to consider Form No.7 filed by Nanjegowda. The respondent No.1 in this appeal is the legal representative of the deceased Nanjegowda.

¶34

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are as under:

¶35

deceased Nanjegowda claimed to be the tenant under one G B Krishnappa. The application in Form No.7 under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was filed by the tenant Nanjegowda in respect of land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.34 of Halugondanahalli Village, Dandinashivara Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumakuru District. The Land Tribunal by an order dated 23.03.1976 granted occupancy rights in favour of

¶36

- 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19961-DB WA No. 6940 of 2017

¶37

Nanjegowda. The aforesaid order passed by the Land Tribunal was set-aside by an order dated 01.12.1977 in Writ Petition No.3007/1976 and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal once again by order dated 06.02.1979 granted occupancy rights. This order was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.17909/1979, which was allowed by an order dated 01.01.1985 and the matter was once again remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Land Tribunal again by an order dated 28.10.1988 granted occupancy rights in favour of the tenant. The said order passed by the Land Tribunal was again challenged in Writ Petition No.30530/1993 which was allowed by an order dated 23.01.2003 and the matter was once again remanded to the Land Tribunal.

¶38

The Land Tribunal thereafter passed an order rejecting

¶39

the petition seeking to grant occupancy rights. The aforesaid order was challenged again in Writ Petition No.10336/2007, which was allowed by an order dated 16.10.2008 and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal thereafter by an order dated 23.03.2011 rejected Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights.

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19961-DB WA No. 6940 of 2017

¶41

The said order was challenged in a Writ Petition before

¶42

the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 has set-aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal and directed the Land Tribunal to consider Form No.7 filed by Nanjegowda. It is relevant to note that after the demise of Nanjegowda, the original Form No.7 applicant the proceedings before the Land Tribunal were continued by the legal representative of Nanjegowda.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there was no material on record to show that Nanjegowda was in possession of the land in question as tenant on the relevant date i.e. 01.03.1974. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge grossly erred in holding that Nanjegowda was in possession as on the relevant date i.e., 01.03.1974. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in HARSHA V. RAI

¶44

vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2013)10 SCC 484.

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:19961-DB WA No. 6940 of 2017

¶46

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶47

We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records.

¶48

Learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 of the order dated 24.04.2017 has interalia held that in RTC extracts from 1967-68, the name of Nanjegowda is recorded as a tenant. There is presumption with regard to the entries made in the revenue records. Besides that, learned Single Judge has further relied on the spot inspection report which is filed subsequent to the spot inspection. The said report reveals that the contesting respondent is in possession of the disputed land as a tenant for the past about 40 years and there are 100 coconut trees which are 20 years old. Learned Single Judge further found that the aforesaid material which is relevant to determine the question, whether or not respondent No.1 is in occupation of the property as a tenant. Learned Single Judge is of the view that the same has not been considered by the Land Tribunal. The learned Single Judge therefore recorded a finding

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:19961-DB WA No. 6940 of 2017

¶50

that Nanjegowda was in possession as tenant on the relevant date and has set-aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The possession of the daughter of the Form No.7 applicant coupled with entry in the revenue record from 1967-1976 would support the claim that Nanjegowda was the tenant of the lands in question. It is relevant to note that the entries in the Record of Rights of the disputed lands were never questioned by the landlord. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of intra Court appeal.

¶51

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

¶52

merit in this appeal. Same fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

BRN

Siddamma v. Nanje Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddamma v. Nanje Gowda

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

Yashpal Infrastructures Enterprises Vs Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Sri.Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S Sea Bird Tourist Center Vs Smas Auto Leasing India Pvt. Ltd.

D.D. Girish Vs Sowmya N

Sri Rajendra Singh Rathore Vs Royal Orchid Associated Hotels Private Limited

The Chief Project Manager Vs the Commissioner