Allowed

Harihar Rao S/O. Raghunathrao Patwardhan v. the Land Tribunal

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2024WP/103302/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed an impugned order of the Land Tribunal exceeding 40-year-old statutory land holding limits on 'E' class land held by the petitioner and his family.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed, impugned order quashed, and matter remanded to Land Tribunal to reconsider Form No.11 and pass appropriate order after hearing.

Harihar Rao S/O. Raghunathrao Patwardhan Vs the Land… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:115 WP No. 103302 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 103302 OF 2015 (LR-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. HARIHAR RAO, S/O. RAGHUNATHRAO PATWARDHAN, AGE: 57 YEARS, HIS HOLINESS RAJA OF KURUNDWAD JR, RAMA PALACE, MADHAVPUR, BELGAUM-590005.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K. S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM, BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY, BELGUAM.

¶12

SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPT. BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶16

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Date: 2024.01.08 11:28:36 +0530

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE CASE IN APPEAL NO.RALR 161/1986, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BELGAUM AND REGISTER THE SAME AS WRIT PETITION AND DISPOSE OF IT ON ITS MERITS.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:115 WP No. 103302 of 2015

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The order dated 25.07.1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belagavi, by which, the petitioners are required to surrender 147 acres and 24 guntas of land in Sy. Nos.240/2D/1 and 240/2D/2 under Section 63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) is impugned in this petition.

¶22

Petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject land. The family members of the petitioner filed Form No.11 as contemplated under Section 66 of the Act declaring that the entire land held by them is not agricultural land, and nonagricultural activity is being carried out since 1941. The Land Tribunal by the impugned order held that the family of the petitioner was holding excess land to an extent of 147 acres 24 guntas.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would make the following submissions. Firstly, the impugned order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner or his family members and without conducting spot inspection as contemplated under Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:115 WP No. 103302 of 2015

¶25

(hereinafter referred to as “Rules” for short). Secondly, the subject land is classified as ‘E’ class lands which is evident from the record of rights, the provisions of Section 63 of the Act are not applicable to ‘E’ class land and only applicable to lands classified as class ‘A’ to ‘D’.

¶26

Learned HCGP for the State would submit that the revenue records indicated that the subject lands are classified as group ‘D’ lands, and the petitioner and his family members were found to be holding excess land to an extent of 147 acres and 24 guntas, and the Land Tribunal taking into account the same, has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay of more than 40 years in challenging the impugned order, and on the ground of delay and latches alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The impugned order was passed on 25.07.1977. The petitioners filed W.P. Nos.19580-81/1979 before this Court on 01.07.1986. In view of the establishment of Land Reforms

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:115 WP No. 103302 of 2015

¶30

Appellate Authority, the matter was transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. Pending consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No.62472/2010 and this Court vide order dated 18.10.2011 disposed off the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a civil petition seeking transfer of the proceedings from the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority since abolished. In the light of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed present Civil Petition No.505/2012. The petitioner all along was diligent in agitating his / their rights before this Court as well as the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and there is no delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of the learned HCGP for the State that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches is not acceptable.

¶31

Perusal of the record of rights indicated that the subject lands have been classified as ‘E’ class land. It is also undisputed that the subject lands were leased to one Dalachand Bahadursingh Firm of Calcutta on 29.07.1971 and a

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:115 WP No. 103302 of 2015

¶33

mining lease deed is executed in his favour by the Government of Karnataka.

¶34

Section 67 of the Act deals with surrender of land in certain cases, and it states that same as provided in Section 66(c) of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, the Tahasildar shall determine to which clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) the land belongs and thereafter, the land Tribunal on the report submitted by the Tahasildar concerned, pass an order approving the declaration filed by the declarant, as contemplated under Section 67(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

¶35

In the instant case, the records indicated that the subject land is notified as ‘E’ class land, and therefore, the Chapter 4 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act which deals with ceiling of land holding is not applicable to ‘E’ class land.

¶36

The learned HCGP however disputes that the subject land is classified as ‘E’ class land, and contends that the the Land Tribunal considering the record of rights has rightly held that the subject land is classified as ‘D’ class land. Whether the subject land is classified as ‘D’ or ‘E’ class is the matter which required to be considered by the Land Tribunal

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC-D:115 WP No. 103302 of 2015

¶39

after providing an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and also considering the material on record. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶42

(ii) The impugned order dated 25.07.1977 passed by the respondent No.1 bearing No.LRM / (66) / SR – 539 + 451 stands quashed.

¶43

(iii) The matter is remanded to the respondent No.1 – Land Tribunal to reconsider the Form No.11 dated 28.12.1974 in respect of the land bearing Sy. Nos.240/2D/1 and 240/2D/2 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶44

(iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶45

(v) The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of constitution of the Land Tribunal.

¶46

RSH CT: ANB

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

Harihar Rao S/O. Raghunathrao Patwardhan v. the Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harihar Rao S/O. Raghunathrao Patwardhan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharmana Kallappa Parit Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar D Kambalekar Vs the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka

Faridayasmin D/O Mohammedgous Khaji Vs the Chief Administrative Officer

Guru Siddeshwara Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs Smt Sumangala

Akki Alur Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Mahadev Mallappa Katkar Vs the State of Karnataka