Dismissed

Gurulingappa v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024WP/201917/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging Land Tribunal orders regarding land grant and protected tenant status. The court held the petitioner was barred by res judicata because a previous writ petition on the same land and extent had been dismissed with finality by this court in 2002.

What did the court decide?

Insisted writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of res judicata due to the conclusiveness of a previous final order.

Gurulingappa Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

��

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.201917 OF 2024 (LR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. GURULINGAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BIJJARGI VILLAGE, TQ TIKOTA DIST. VIJAPUR.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHRAVAN KUMAR MATH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶16

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶18

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DIVISION BELAGAVI CITY-590 001.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT

¶21

VIJAYAPURA CITY-586 101.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA SUB-DIVISION

¶23

VIJAYAPURA CITY– 586 101.

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR VIJAYAPURA TALUK

¶25

¶26

��

¶27

DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA – 586 101.

¶28

THE TAHASILDAR TIKOTA TALUK

¶29

VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586 101.

¶30

THE LAND TRIBUNAL VIJAYAPURA TALUK

¶31

VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586 101.

¶32

THE LAND TRIBUNAL TIKOTA TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586 101.

¶33

GURUNATH S/O GUNDU BHOSLE AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O BIJJARAGI, TQ AND

¶34

DIST VIJAYAPURA 586 101.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SMT. MAYA T.R, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-8 SRI. SHIVAPUTRA S. UDBALKAR AND SRI. SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-9)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

¶38

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.7 BEARING …… DATED 16.01.1979 IN SO FAR AS NOT GRANTING ENTIRE LAND SY.NO.400 MEASURING 15 ACRE 31 GUNTAS OF BIJJARGI VIILGE OF TIKOTA TALUK OF VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT.

¶39

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

¶41

��

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶45

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶46

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order passed by respondent No.7 bearing No…. dated 16.01.1979 in so far as not granting entire land Sy.No.400 measuring 15 acre 31 guntas of Bijjargi Village of Tikota Taluk of Vijayapura District.

¶47

b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of respondent No.8 bearing No.KLR/SR.08 dated 21.04.2022 vide Annexure-‘F’ in rejecting the claim of the petitioner to enter his name as protected tenant in RoR of Sy.No.400/2 measuring 07 acre 35 guntas of Bijjargi Village of Tikota taluk of Vijayapura District, in the interest of justice.

¶48

c) To grant any other relief to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶49

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶50

HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and learned counsel for respondent No.9 and perused the material on record.

¶51

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioner filed an application in Form No.7 in relation to Sy.No.401/3 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas and Sy.No.400

¶52

��

¶53

¶54

measuring 15 acres 31 guntas both lands situated at Bijjaragi Village of Tikota Taluk (earlier Vijayapura Taluk) of Vijayapura District on 22.10.1974. By order dated 16.01.1979, respondent No.8 – Land Tribunal, Tikota Taluk, Vijayapura District, granted 4 acres 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.401/3 applied by the petitioner. However, insofar as extent of land measuring 15 acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.400 is concerned, the Land Tribunal granted only 5 acres 4 guntas and did not grant occupancy rights in relation to the receipt of the remaining extent of land. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.01.1979 granting only 5 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.400, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.8590/1999, which was dismissed on 24.10.2002 on the ground of delay. The said order dated 24.10.2002 passed in W.P.No.8590/1999 by this Court has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioner.

¶55

Subsequently, petitioner submitted a representation in

¶56

the year 2017 to the Land Tribunal to mutate his name in relation to 7 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.400 by removing / deleting the name of the State Government. The said representation having not been considered, the petitioner approached this Court in

¶57

��

¶58

¶59

W.P.No.207842/2017, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2019 directing the Land Tribunal to consider the application filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, on 21.04.2022, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner to enter his name as protected tenant.

¶60

Meanwhile, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.202571/2022 during pendency of which the respondent brought to the notice of this Court regarding the aforesaid order dated 21.04.2022, as a result of which, this Court disposed of W.P.No.202571/2022 vide final order dated 03.07.2023 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 21.04.2022. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.01.1979 passed by respondent No.7 – Land Tribunal, Vijayapura Taluk, Vijayapura District as well as the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 passed by respondent No.8 – Land Tribunal, Tikota Taluk, Vijayapura District, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶61

A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record will indicate that the claim of the petitioner for grant of land in addition to 5 acres 4 guntas was already

¶62

��

¶63

¶64

rejected by respondent No.7 – Land Tribunal, Vijayapura Taluk, Vijayapura District as long back as on 16.01.1979 and challenge to the said order was rejected by this Court in W.P.No.8590/1999 dated 24.10.2002 and the said order has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to seek grant of occupancy rights or request for insertion of his name as protected tenant and since the said issue has already attained finality and operates as res judicata as against the petitioner insofar the land in Sy.No.400 in addition to 5 acres 4 guntas granted in his favour.

¶65

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that since in the impugned order dated 16.01.1979 passed by respondent No.7 – Land Tribunal, Vijayapura Taluk, Vijayapura District has already been rejected by this Court in W.P.No.8590/1999 dated 24.10.2002, petitioner is not entitled to the said relief sought for by him. So also, the question of entering the name of the petitioner as protected tenant in relation to 7 acres 36 guntas does not also arise in the facts and circumstances of the

¶66

¶67

��

¶68

instant case. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition,

¶69

which is liable to be dismissed.

¶70

Accordingly, petition stands dismissed .

¶71

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶72

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Gurulingappa v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurulingappa v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruva Gramantara High School Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Dhruva Gramantara High School Vs the State of Karnataka

Rudragouda R Patil and Ors. Vs Sangappa and Ors.

Beerappa S/O Shankareppa Halli Vs Laxman and Ors.

Shankreppa Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Hussain Sab S/O Late Abdul Husen Muthawalli Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.