Remanded

Rudrappa S/O Yadavappa Yadavannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 May 2023WP/24192/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged Land Tribunal's rejection of their occupancy rights claim. The Court held tenancy could not terminate by efflux of time under Section 6 and lands vested in the State, remitting the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order of Land Tribunal and remitted the matter for fresh disposal with opportunity to parties.

Rudrappa S/O Yadavappa Yadavannavar Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24192 OF 2005 (LR-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O YADAVAPPA YADAVANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S

¶10

1(A) SRI. LAKSHMAN S/O RUDRAPPA YADAVANNAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PHULAGADDI VILLAGE, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶11

1(B) SRI. MURIGEPPA S/O RUDRAPPA YADAVANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PHULAGADDI VILLAGE, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶12

Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
RAKESH Location:
S High Court
of Karnataka,
HARIHAR Dharwad
Date:
2023.06.03
11:20:00
+0530

¶13

SRI. IRAPANNA YADAVAPPA YADAVANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S.

¶14

2(A) SMT. GOWRAWWA W/O IRAPPANNA YADAVANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED AND HER L.R’S. PETITIONERS NO.2(B) TO 2(F) ARE TREATED AS HER L.R’S.

¶15

2(B) SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O IRAPPANNA YADAVANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: LINEMAN, KPTCL, R/O. PHULAGADDI, TAL: MUDALAGI,

¶16

DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶17

2(C) SMT. PREMA W/O RAMAPPA BELLIVARIYAVAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KALLOLI, TQ: GOKAK,

¶18

2 - WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶19

DIST: BELAGAVI-591218.

¶20

2(D) SRI. YADAVAPPA S/O IRAPANNA YADAVANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PHULAGADDI, TQ: PHULAGADDI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶21

2(E) SMT. SUMITRA W/O ASHOK GUNDLUR, AGED AOBUT 39 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

¶22

2(F) SRI. PRAKASH S/O IRAPANNA YADAVANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: LINEMAN, KPTCL, R/O. PHULAGADDI, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶23

2(G) SRI. MAHANTESH S/O IRAPANNA YADAVANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED AND HER L.R’S I.E. PETITIONERS NO.2(B) TO 2(F) ARE TREATED AS HIS L.R’S

¶24

1. SRI. IRAPPA S/O YADAVAPPA YADAVANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S

¶25

3(A) SRI. VIRUPAX S/O IRAPPA YADAVANNAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S

¶26

3(A)(1) SMT. BASSAVVA W/O IRAPPA YADAVANNAVAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PHULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶27

1. SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O YADAVAPPA YADAVANNAVAR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, MILITARY SERVICE, R/O. PHULAGADDI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. …PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SMT. PALLAVI S PACHHAPURE & SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATES FOR P1 (A&B),P2(B) TO 2(F) & P3(A)(1); SMT. RANJITA RADDI ALAGAWADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B V SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR P4)

¶29

3 - WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶32

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶33

SRI. GOWDAPPA S/O BASAPPA NAIK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

¶34

3(A) SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O GOWDAPPA NAIK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶35

3(B) SRI. SHANKAR S/O GOWDAPPA NAIK, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶36

3(C) SRI. RANGAPPA S/O GOWDAPPA NAIK, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶37

SRI. LAXMAN S/O BASAPPA NAIK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S

¶38

4(A) SMT. ANNAPURANA W/O LAXMAN NAIK, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶39

4(B) SRI. SHIVANANDA S/O LAXMAN NAIK, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶40

¶41

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶42

SRI. YENKAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA NAIK SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S

¶43

SMT. GANGAWWA W/O YANKAPPA NAIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶44

SRI. VASAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA NAIK SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S

¶45

6(A) SMT. SATYAWWA W/O VASAPPA NAIK, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶46

6(B) SRI. HANUMANTH S/O VASAPPA NAIK, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI,

¶47

DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶48

6(C) SRI. TAMMANNA S/O VASAPPA NAIK, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PULAGADDI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶49

… RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A-C), R4 (A & B), R5(A) & R6(A-C)

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2005 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN LRA / GK / 5 + 6 + 7 + 9 + 11 + 31/ PULGATTI AS PER VIDE ANEXURE-‘T’ & ETC.

¶52

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶53

5 - WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶54

ORDER

¶55

This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of

¶56

the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 20.07.2005, passed by the 2^nd respondent – Land Tribunal in proceedings bearing No.LRA/ GK/ 5 + 6 + 7 + 9 + 11 + 31/ Pulgatti, vide Annexure-T, wherein the application filed by the petitioners in Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.106/1, 106/2A & 106/2B measuring 30 guntas each has been rejected.

¶57

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶58

The petitioners claim to be in actual possession and cultivation of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.106/1, 106/2A & 106/2B measuring 30 guntas each, situated at Pulagaddi Village, Gokak Taluka, Belagavi District (which are hereinafter referred to as “the lands in question”). It is the case of the petitioners that, the lands in question were leased to their predecessors under a registered Kabulayat

¶59

6 - WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶60

deed dated 30.08.1941. The entries in the revenue records of the lands in question thereafter continued in the name of the predecessors of the petitioners till the year 1945. In the year 1965, the petitioners had filed O.S. No.127/1965 against the contesting private respondents to declare that they are in possession and occupation of the lands in question as tenants and also for consequential reliefs. After coming into force of the Amendment Act No.1 of 1974, the petitioners had filed three separate Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights of the lands in question. Considering the same, the Tribunal by order dated 22.10.1981 had granted the occupancy rights of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners. The same was questioned by the land owners in W.P. Nos.40286-288/1981 and this Court allowed the writ petitions and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration by order dated 10.11.2000. After the remand, the Tribunal rejected Form No.7 filed by the petitioners by order dated 29.01.2003. The same was questioned by the petitioners herein in

¶61

¶62

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶63

W.P. No.7517/2003, which was allowed by order dated 29.08.2003 and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the land owners in W.A. No.7066/2003, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 23.01.2004. After the remand, the Land Tribunal once again took up the matter and by the order impugned has rejected the claim made by the petitioners in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights of the lands in question in their favour. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶64

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has erred in rejecting the claim. She submits that the spot inspection report would go to show that the petitioners are in occupation of the lands in question. She also submits that the lands in question were leased to the

¶65

¶66

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶67

predecessors of the petitioners under a registered document and there is no material to show that the possession of the said lands have been taken back by the land owners or that the tenants / petitioners have surrendered the lands in question from the land owners. The petitioners have also produced the Irrigation Rotation Card issued by the Irrigation Department to show that they are still in possession and cultivation of the lands in question. She submits that after the predecessors of the petitioners, the petitioners have continued in possession and cultivation of the lands in question and as on 01.03.1974, the petitioners were in possession and cultivation of the lands in question and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting their Form No.7.

¶68

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents / land owners submits that Kabulayat deed at Annexure-A is a disputed document. She submits that even if the said document is presumed to be true, the same is executed only for a

¶69

9 - WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶70

period of five years and after the expiry of the said period,

¶71

the possession of the tenants / petitioners is unlawful. Even if the tenants / petitioners have continued in the possession and cultivation of the lands in question, since their possession is unlawful, they cannot be considered as protected tenants. She submits that the petitioners have not produced any cogent evidence before the Tribunal to prove their possession and cultivation of the lands in question and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting their claim. She submits that the lands in question are barren lands and therefore, the occupancy rights of the said lands cannot be granted.

¶72

Learned AGA has made available the original

¶73

records of the Tribunal and has argued in support of the order impugned and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶74

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶75

10 - WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶76

The petitioners’ claim that their predecessor’s

¶77

were put in possession of the lands in question under Kabulayat deed said to have been executed in the year 1941, which is produced as Annexure-A. Certified copy of the said document is available in the original record, which is made available by the learned AGA. A perusal of the

¶78

same would go to show that the said document is a registered document and was marked as an exhibit in O.S. No.127/1965. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents that the said document is a disputed or fraudulent document and it is too late in the day to raise such contention.

¶79

Under the Kabulayat deed, the lands in question were leased to the predecessor of the petitioners and the lease period was for five years. There is no material available on record to show that after the expiry of five years period of lease, the lands in question were surrendered to the land owners or the land owners have

¶80

11 -

¶81

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶82

taken possession of the lands in question from the lessee in accordance with law.

¶83

On behalf of the land owners, their general

¶84

power of attorney namely one Ramappa Dasappa Naik was examined before the Tribunal and during the course of his cross-examination, he has categorically admitted that there is no document to show that the tenants / petitioners had surrendered the lands in question after the expiry of the lease period nor there was any document to show that the land owners had taken possession of the lands in question from the tenants after the expiry of lease period.

¶85

Section 6 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) provides that tenancy shall not be terminated by efflux of time. This Court in the case of Gurusidaiah Vs. Land Tribunal reported in 1979(2) Kar.L.J. 176 , in almost identical circumstances, wherein, under a registered lease deed, possession of the lands were delivered for a period of five years, has held

¶86

12 -

¶87

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶88

that since the deed in question is a lease deed and not a mortgage deed, the recital regarding the delivery cannot be given effect to in view of Section 6 of the Act, 1961.

¶89

It is the specific case of the petitioners that they have continued in possession and cultivation of the lands in question even after the expiry of the lease period. O.S. No.127/1965 was filed by them against the land owners with the prayer to declare that they were in possession of the lands in question as tenants and also for consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the Court Commissioner has filed a report dated 21.02.1965, which would go to show that a portion of the lands in question were under cultivation by the petitioners and the remaining portion was a barren lands. In the report, there is also mention about a hut situated in the lands in question. A local inspection report was also called for by the Tribunal during the course of its enquiry before passing the initial order under which occupancy rights were granted to the petitioners. A perusal of the report

¶90

13 -

¶91

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶92

and sketch prepared after the inspection would go to show that a hut existed in the portion of the property, which belonged to the first petitioner. The said document also shows that a portion of the lands in question was cultivated by the petitioners, while the remaining portion is barren land. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate these material documents. In addition to the same, independent witnesses examined on behalf of the tenants have also stated that the petitioners are in possession and cultivation of the lands in question.

¶93

The Tribunal while rejecting the Form No.7 has therefore erroneously held that the petitioners / tenants had failed to prove that they were in possession and cultivation of the lands in question as on 01.03.1974 and immediately prior to the said date. The Tribunal has also held that the lands in question had not vested in the State as provided under Section 44 of the Act, 1961 and therefore, the petitioners / tenants were not entitled for grant of occupancy rights of the lands in question.

¶94

14 -

¶95

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶96

Section 44 of the Act, 1961 provides that 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 tenants under leases permitted under section 5, shall, with effect on and from the said date, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government. The Amendment Act No.1 of 1974 has come into force with effect from 01.03.1974, the tenants who were put in possession of the lands in question under a registered lease deed allegedly continued to be in possession and cultivation of the said lands, even after the expiry of the lease period and the material on record would go to show that the land owners have failed to prove that the tenants had surrendered the possession of the lands in question after the expiry of the lease period or that the land owners have taken possession or / evicted the tenants in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in holding

¶97

15 -

¶98

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶99

that the lands in question had not vested in the State under Section 44 of the Act, 1961.

¶100

15. The Tribunal has also held that since the lease

¶101

period was restricted for five years, it has to be presumed that the lease was not continued. When there is absolutely no material to show that the tenants had surrendered the lands in question to the land owners or that the land owners have taken possession of the lands in question in accordance with law, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that it has to be presumed that after the expiry of five years, the lease was not continued.

¶102

Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the matter requires to be remitted to the Tribunal once again for fresh consideration of the Form No.7 filed by the petitioners after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record and after giving opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly, the following:

¶103

16 -

¶104

WP No. 24192 of 2005

¶105

ORDER

¶106

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶107

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.07.2005, passed by the 2^nd respondent, Land Tribunal in the proceedings bearing No.LRA/ GK/ 5 + 6 + 7 + 9 + 11 + 31/ Pulgatti, vide Annexure-T, is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶108

Sd/JUDGE

¶109

Vnp* / CT: BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Rudrappa S/O Yadavappa Yadavannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudrappa S/O Yadavappa Yadavannavar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Vittal F Bharamannavar

Ishwarappa Mahalingappa Kolhar Vs Director of Technical Education

M/S Palled Regency Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Basavaraj S/O. Bhojappa Kadagad Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Sri Mallasarjappa S/O Yellappa Omkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sudha W/O Late Gajanana Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka