Disposed

Sri P Manjappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024WP/3001/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal representatives of land tenancy applicants challenged the Land Tribunal's rejection of their occupancy rights claim. The Court found the Tribunal's order was not signed by all Members and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration with status quo to be maintained pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Land Tribunal order set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration; parties to appear on 02.12.2024; status quo maintained till orders passed.

Sri P Manjappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45777 WP No. 3001 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 3001 OF 2022 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI P. MANJAPPA S/O LATE SHANTHAVEERAPPA AGED 64 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O. LATE MAHESHWARAPPA AGED 63 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. SWETHA D/O. LATE MAHESHWARAPPA AGED 32 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI DAYANANDA D/O. LATE MAHESHWARAPPA AGED 30 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. ALIRANIYAMMA W/O. LATE BASAVARAJAPPA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE VEERAPPA AGED 62 YEARS,

¶13

SRI MAHENDRAPPA S/O LATE VEERAPPA AGED 52 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. LATE NAGARAJAPPA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:45777 WP No. 3001 of 2022

¶16

LATE POOJAR VEERABASAPPA AGED 68 YEARS,

¶17

SRI JAYAKUMAR @ JAYAPPA S/O LATE POOJAR VEERABASAPPA AGED 73 YEARS,

¶18

SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O LATE POOJAR VEERABASAPPA AGED 68 YEARS,

¶19

SRI KUMBESHAPPA S/O LATE POOJAR VEERABASAPPA AGED 64 YEARS,

¶20

SRI VEERABHADRAPPA S/O LATE POOJAR VEERABASAPPA AGED 62 YEARS,

¶21

SRI ANANDA KUMAR P. S/O LATE POOJAR VEERABASAPPA AGED 60 YEARS,

¶22

ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST R/AT GAAMA VILLAGE ANJANAPURA HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 214.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45777 WP No. 3001 of 2022

¶28

THE LAND TRIBUNAL REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SHIKARIPURA SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 214.

¶29

SHRI VEERABHADRA DEVARU TEMPLE SAMITHI REP. BY ITS CONVENER GAAMA VILLAGE ANJANAPURA HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 214.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SMT. ADITHI M.V., AGA FOR R.1 & R.2; SRI S. SIDDARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M.V. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)

¶32

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2021 IN CASE NO.LRT.7.CR.428/197576, 19/1976-77 AND 18/1981-82 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 LAND TRIBUNAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶33

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:45777 WP No. 3001 of 2022

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the second respondent, the legal representatives of the applicants therein have preferred this writ petition.

¶39

The case of the petitioners is that they were tilling the land and were the tenants in respect of the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition as on 01.03.1974. Their ancestors claimed occupancy rights and approached the Land Tribunal, Shikaripura for grant of the land in their favour. The same has been rejected by way of an impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶40

The impugned order is challenged on two grounds; firstly, on the ground that the impugned order is not signed by all the Members of the Land Tribunal and secondly, on the ground that the Land Tribunal based on the evidence has wrongly concluded that there was no tenancy in respect of the land concerned.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45777 WP No. 3001 of 2022

¶42

4. With regard to the second argument, the petitioners

¶43

have drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-'R1' which is an agreement said to have been entered between respondent No.3 - Temple and the ancestors of the petitioners, which in fact reveals that land belonged to the temple and the ancestors of the petitioners were doing pooja in the Temple and as a consideration for the same they were allowed to cultivate the land in question. However, there was a clause in the said agreement which states that the said agreement is not a lease and the forefathers of the petitioners are not entitled to any tenancy rights. Based on the said clause in the agreement, the Land Tribunal has held that the petitioners are not tenants.

¶44

While interpreting any contract, the same has to be read as a whole. The contents of the impugned agreement when read as a whole indicates that the ancestors of the petitioners were ‘archakas’ of the temple and were

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45777 WP No. 3001 of 2022

¶46

permitted to cultivate the land belonging to the temple upon payment of a consideration. Irrespective of the clauses mentioned, when read as a whole, the agreement will have to be considered as a tenancy agreement wherein the ancestors of the petitioners were allowed to do the pooja and were also permitted to till the land by paying a consideration.

¶47

Further, it is not disputed by the petitioners or the learned AGA or learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 that the impugned order is not signed by all the Members of the Land Tribunal. That alone is sufficient ground to set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Land Tribunal. Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The impugned order dated 21.12.2021 bearing No.J ¯ï.Dgï.n.7.¹Dgï.428/1975-76, 19/1976-77 and 18/1981-82 passed by the second respondent is hereby set aside.

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45777 WP No. 3001 of 2022

¶51

ii. The matter stands remanded back to the second respondent.

¶52

iii. Parties shall appear before second respondent on 02.12.2024 without further notice.

¶53

iv. Respondent No.2 shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶54

v. The same shall be decided without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above.

¶55

vi. All contentions are left open.

¶56

vii. Till appropriate orders are passed by the Land Tribunal, status-quo shall be maintained in respect of the property concerned.

¶57

viii. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶58

ix. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶59

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶60

VMB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri P Manjappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Manjappa 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

Sri N Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

H M Manje Gowda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. Akshitha K a Vs the State of Karnataka

Tata Coffee Limited Vs State of Karnataka

T G Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivas Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner