Remanded

Mohmad Kasim S/O Mohmad Usman Katib v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023WP/111450/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the 1977 Land Tribunal order granting occupancy rights to the petitioner. The Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration as the Tribunal relied on a statement by the respondent's son that could not be produced and which was not findings of the record.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 09.09.1977 passed by the Land Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

Mohmad Kasim S/O Mohmad Usman Katib Vs the State of Karnataka — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14120 WP No. 111450 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 111450 OF 2019 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHMAD KASIM S/O. MOHMAD USMAN KATIB, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JUMMA MASJID COMPOUND, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY HIS P.A. HOLDER, MOHAMMEDYUSUF S/O. USMANSHA MAKANDAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO.4, KALLIPETE ONI, BADAMI DIST: BAGALAKOTE-587201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHARAD M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally
signed by
SHIVAKUMAR
SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH
HIREMATH Date:
2023.12.07
11:58:43
+0530

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶14

THE LAND TRIBUNAL RANEBENNUR BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RANEBENNUR TALUK, DIST: HAVERI.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR RANEBENNUR TALUK, DIST: HAVERI.

¶16

SHEKAPPA

¶17

S/O. CHINNAPPA NILAGIRIYAPPANAVAR @ BANNIMATTI

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14120 WP No. 111450 of 2019

¶20

AGE: MAJOR(AGE NOT KNOWN), R/O: GAVARADAVAR STREET, RENEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115.

¶21

MAILARAPPA S/O. CHIKKAPPA NILAGIRIYAPPANAVAR @ BANNIMATTI AGE: MAJOR (AGE NOT KNOWN), RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR M. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.09.1977 IN LRF(A) SR 99/76-77 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT NO. 2 RANEBENNUR VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶28

The Land Tribunal, Ranebennur in terms of the order dated 09.09.1977 granted occupancy right in respect of property bearing Sy.No.906/1 measuring 8 acres in Kanagondanahalli Village, Ranebennur Taluk. The order which is impugned in this petition would indicate that the respondent

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14120 WP No. 111450 of 2019

¶30

viz., Mohammad Khasim Khatib @ Mohammad Usman’s son has given a consent stating that the applicant was cultivating the land for the last 6-7 years as a tenant. Based on the said statement, occupancy is granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that his son Nasurddin Khatib was born on 10.6.1989 and he further states that he is the only son of the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also invite the attention of this Court to the ration card issued to the petitioner’s family wherein it is evident that the petitioner is having only one son by name Nasruddin Khatib and petitioner’s wife is Taherabi. Referring to the aforementioned documents, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in 1977 when the Tribunal passed the order, son of the petitioner was not born and he was born on 10.6.1989 as is evident from the Birth Certificate. Thus, he would submit that the impugned order dated 9.9.1977 is erroneous as there was no consent given by the petitioner’s son to the effect that the applicant before the Land Tribunal was cultivating the land as a tenant.

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14120 WP No. 111450 of 2019

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the submission on the ground that the Tribunal has rightly passed the order in the year 1977 and it is his contention that the present petitioner himself has given a statement before the Tribunal stating that the applicant was cultivating the property as a tenant.

¶34

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.

¶35

From the impugned order at Annexure – J, it is evident that the Tribunal has proceeded based on alleged statement of the son of the opponent before the Tribunal. The order does not say that the opponent himself has given a statement before the Tribunal admitting the claim of the petitioner. The statement of the respondent’s son is also not found in the records and the learned Government Advocate is unable to produce the statement of the opponent before the Tribunal to the effect that the applicant was cultivating the land as a tenant.

¶36

By looking into the impugned order, it is apparent that there is no application of mind by the Tribunal when the

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14120 WP No. 111450 of 2019

¶38

Tribunal states that the petitioner’s son has given a statement admitting the claim of the applicant.

¶39

Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 09.09.1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ranebennur is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶40

It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner as well as the contesting respondent.

¶41

All contentions are kept open.

¶42

Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on

¶43

22.01.2024 without waiting for further notice.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

BRN LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42

Mohmad Kasim S/O Mohmad Usman Katib v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohmad Kasim S/O Mohmad Usman Katib v. the State of Karnataka

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

Indusind Media and Communication Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S K.M. Parvathamma Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

M/S.Jituri Cement Products Vs Commercial Tax Officer (ENF-3)

Yallappa Ningappa Kudari Vs Basappa Gireppa Kudari @ Uppar

Sri. B.D. Eranna S/O Late B. Hanumoanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

K M B Facility Management Service Vs Office of the Commissioner of Central Gods and Service