Allowed

Ramachandra S/O. Gangapati Bhat v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/64132/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash an order of the Land Tribunal, Sirsi, which granted occupancy rights based on a claim of low compensation. The High Court held the Tribunal erred by disregarding the final order of the Supreme Court and allowed the petition, quashing the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

The order of Land Tribunal dated 23.05.2012 granting occupancy rights is set aside and quashed.

Ramachandra S/O. Gangapati Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12725 WP No. 64132 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 64132 OF 2012 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMACHANDRA S/O. GANAPATI BHAT, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANDALIKE VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

¶10

1A. SMT. MANJULA W/O RAMACHANDRA BHAT, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANDALIKE VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶11

1B. RASHMA D/O RAMACHANDRA BHAT, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANDALIKE VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶12

Digitally signed byPREMCHANDRA M R1C. VAISHALI D/O RAMACHANDRA BHAT, Location: HIGH AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶13

COURT OFKARNATAKA R/O: BANDALIKE VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶14

SUBRAY S/O. GANAPATI BHAT, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANDALIKE VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶15

SHANKARANARAYANA S/O. GANAPATI BHAT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,

¶16

3A. VIJAYA W/O SHANKARANARAYAN BHAT, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12725 WP No. 64132 of 2012

¶18

R/O: BANDALIKE VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI,

¶19

DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶20

3B. SHASHANK S/O SHANKARANARAYAN BHAT, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANDALIKE VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶21

3C. SHWETHA D/O SHANKARANARAYAN BHAT, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BANDALIKE VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶22

SMT. SEETA W/O. VENKATRAMAN BHAT, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: YALUGAR VILLAGE, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. V.G. BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY IT’S SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶27

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, SIRSI, R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶28

MANJUNATH S/O. LINGESHWAR BHAT, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALASIGI, POST: TADAGUNI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶29

SMT. GIRIJA W/O. LINGESHWAR BHAT, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALASIGI, POST: TADAGUNI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12725 WP No. 64132 of 2012

¶31

SMT. JANHAVI W/O. NARAYAN BHAT, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KIBBALLI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶32

SMT. JAYALAXMI W/O. MADHUKAR HEGDE, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BALEGUNDDE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶33

SMT. VEDAVTI W/O. BHAIRAVESHWARA BHAT, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: R/O: MUROORU, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶34

SMT. LAXMI W/O. RAGHU HEGDE, R/O: BALEGUDDE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶35

SMT. YASHODHA W/O. NARAYAN BHAT, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: R/O: MUROORU, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶36

SMT. SHOBHA W/O. ANANT HEGDE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: R/O: KANTHIDEVARAKOPPA, SONDA, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶37

SMT. SAROJA W/O. LAXMINARAYANA HEGDE, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: R/O: KODSAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU.S.HIREMTAH., AGA FOR R1-R2; SMT. V.VIDYA IYER., ADVOCATE FOR R3-R6; R7 TO R11-DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12725 WP No. 64132 of 2012

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

Sri.V.G.Bhat., counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath., AGA for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt.V.Vidya., counsel for respondents 3 to 6 have appeared in person.

¶46

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 23.05.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi in ¥ÀæPÀgÀt J¯ï.Dgï.JªÀiï/J¸ï.Dgï 2310 + 1215 + 5414 + 6785 + 6778 vide Annexure-A.

¶47

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

¶48

with utmost care.

¶49

Suffice it to note that one Laxmi and Subray Bhat

¶50

were husband and wife. They had two sons (Ganapati and Lingeshwar) and four daughters. Laxmi died on 08.02.1945. At the time of her death, she had in possession of R.S No.52, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 of Bandalike Village of Tataguni Grama of Sirsi Taluka as owner of ½ share and as tenant of remaining half share. Lingeshwar Subray Bhat filed a suit seeking a relief of Partition and Separate Possession of the above mentioned

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12725 WP No. 64132 of 2012

¶52

survey numbers both in respect of properties under ownership and properties under Moolageni (tenancy) along with prayer to award mesne profit from 1955 till possession of the lands. The name of Lingeshwar Subray Bhat was entered along with Ganapati Subray Bhat in the revenue register with respect of above said lands subject to result of decree in O.S.No.111/1955.

¶53

As the matter stood thus, the suit came to be dismissed by the Civil Court, Sirsi on 27.03.1961. An appeal was preferred in R.A.No.103/1961 and the same was also dismissed on 13.08.1969. The daughters and sons preferred a second appeal. The appeal filed by the daughters in R.S.A.No.1329/1969 was dismissed on 29.03.1973. The appeal preferred by the sons in R.S.A.No.102/1970 was also dismissed on 22.08.1975. Lingeshwar Subray Bhat questioned the order of second appeal before the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 07.02.1995 disposed of the appeal and directed Ganapati Subray Bhat to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to Lingeshwar Subray Bhat.

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12725 WP No. 64132 of 2012

¶55

It is pivotal to note that the occupancy rights were claimed over the tenanted lands both by Ganapati Subray Bhat and Lingeshwar Subray Bhat. Suffice it to note that the lands

¶56

over which the tenancy rights were claimed by Lingeshwar Subray Bhat were also part of the suit properties. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights taking note of the contention urged by Lingeshwar Subray Bhat that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs only) was meager, since the value of the lands is more than Rs.43,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs only). This is untenable. The reason is apparent. The copy of the order passed by the Apex Court is furnished along with the Writ Petition and the same is marked as Annexure-D. The Apex Court has directed Ganapati Subray Bhat to pay Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs only) to Lingeshwar Subray Bhat. The order of the Apex Court has attained finality. Therefore, Lingeshwar Subray Bhat has no other option except to obey the order of the Apex Court. In my view, the Tribunal has failed to have regard to the order passed by the Apex Court and erroneously granted occupancy rights taking note of the contentions urged by Lingeshwar Subray Bhat. Therefore, the

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12725 WP No. 64132 of 2012

¶59

order of Land Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is

¶60

set-aside.

¶61

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 23.05.2012 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sirsi in ¥ÀæPÀgÀt J¯ï.Dgï.JªÀiï/J¸ï.Dgï 2310 + 1215 + 5414 + 6785 + 6778 vide

¶62

Annexure-A is quashed.

¶63

6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶64

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶65

MRP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 28

Ramachandra S/O. Gangapati Bhat v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandra S/O. Gangapati Bhat 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Gireesh Balappa Gangavathi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Ratnavva W/O Mahadevappa Halikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Altaf S/O.Abdul Gafar Savanur Vs Smt.Meharunnisa W/O.Abdulsab Kalas

Dyamanna S/O Yamanappa Jalageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallikarjun Alias Malleshappa S/O Channabasappa Yalmali Vs the Land Tribunal

Prakash S/O Nagayya Shetty Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer