Dismissed

Tanuja D/O. Homi Belgaumvala v. Khasim Sab

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2024WP/68449/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a Land Tribunal order granting occupancy rights to respondent No.1 on his Form No.7 application. The Tribunal found the tenant in occupation and cultivation as on 01.03.1974 with rent receipts and lease deed, while the purchaser-petitioner produced no possession or tax documents. The High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tanuja D/O. Homi Belgaumvala Vs Khasim Sab — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5931 WP No. 68449 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.68449/2011(LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KUM. TANUJA D/O. HOMI BELGAUMVALA, AGE: 40 YEARS, R/O: HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SIR RAMAPPA HULIGEPPA GARWADA, RESIDING AT NEAR SIDDARODHAMATH, HUBBALLI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI VINAY S. KOUJALAGI AND SRI V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KHASIM SAB BABASAB DADI @ MELINAMANI, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S.

¶13

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

1A. SMT. HUSSAIN BEE W/O. KHASIM SAB DADI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ANCHATGERI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶15

1B. MOHMMAD KHASIM SAB DADI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: ANCHATGERI VILLAGE, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,

¶17

…RESPONDENTS [BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A AND B) ABSENT; SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R2]

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5931 WP No. 68449 of 2011

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08/07/2011 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY BEARING NO.KLR/SR/AANCHATAGERI/32 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is seeking grant of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 08.07.2011 passed by respondent No.2, granting occupancy right in favour of respondent No.1.

¶23

Heard learned counsel Sri.Vinay S. Koujalagi and Sri.V.M..Sheelavant, appearing for petitioner and Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.1 had filed Form No.7 as per Annexure-A on 24.08.1976 showing one Sri.Dyamanna Hanumanthappa Dalavi, as the owner of property. The Land Tribunal, Hubballi, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) considered the said Form No.7 and granted occupancy

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5931 WP No. 68449 of 2011

¶26

right and the same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.No.17391/1998. It is noticed by this Court that the said Sri.Dyamanna Hanumanthappa Dalavi, had sold the property in question in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 19.11.1971. Therefore, the writ petition came to be allowed and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court. In spite of that the tribunal has once again passed the impugned order as per Annexure-J and granted occupancy right in favour of respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel contended that when the

¶28

petitioner had purchased the property in question under registered sale deed dated 19.11.1971, for which respondent No.1 is a signatory as witness, he could not have filed Form No.7, showing Sri.Dyamanna Hanumanthappa Dalavi, as owner. Deliberately, respondent No.1 misled the Tribunal by not showing the name of the petitioner as the owner. Therefore, he prays

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5931 WP No. 68449 of 2011

¶30

for allowing the petition, by setting aside Annexure-J in the interest of justice.

¶31

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that since the name of the petitioner was not shown in Form No.7Annexure-A. The W.P.No.17391/1998 was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal after considering the documents that are placed before it, assigned valid reasons for conferring the occupancy right in favour of respondent No.1. There are no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

Perused the materials on record. 7. Respondent No.1 had filed Form No.7 on

¶33

24.08.1976 as per Annexure-A, showing the name of Sri.Dyamanna Hanumanthappa Dalavi. Learned counsel

¶34

for the petitioner produced the copy of the sale deed dated

¶35

19.11.1971 said to have been executed by one Ramappa Hanumanthappa Dalavi, in favour of Mariyappa and Tanuja

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5931 WP No. 68449 of 2011

¶37

i.e. petitioner herein. Admittedly, the Tribunal had granted

¶38

occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.1 on the basis of Annexure-A.

¶39

The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.17391/1998. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration since the petitioner was not notified

¶40

about the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner herein, conducted fresh enquiry and passed the order as per Annexure-J.

¶41

In Annexure-J, the Tribunal has stated that the tenant has produced the receipt dated 29.04.1970 for having paid the rent for the years 1970-71 and he has also produced the lease deed dated 15.03.1971 and receipts for having paid the lease amount to the owner since from 1971-1972. Considering these materials on record, the Tribunal formed an opinion that as on 01.03.1974, it was respondent No.1 who was in occupation and cultivation of the property, as a tenant. Therefore, he is entitled for grant of occupancy rights.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5931 WP No. 68449 of 2011

¶43

The Tribunal has also observed that the

¶44

petitioner has not produced any document to show that it was she was in occupation and cultivation of the property in question after purchase of the property under registered sale deed. No tax paid receipt is produced and no other document to show that she came in possession of the property. Therefore, claim of the petitioner was rejected.

¶45

The reasons assigned by the Tribunal are just and reasonable. Petitioner has not produced any materials on record either before the Tribunal or before this Court to

¶46

show that after the registered sale deed dated 19.11.1971, she came in possession of the agricultural land and cultivated the same as owner. The materials which are referred to by the Tribunal, prima facie disclose that it was respondent No.1, who was the tenant in respect of the property in question and was cultivating the same. There is no resumption of land by tenantrespondent No.1 as required under law. If at all the petitioner was in possession and cultivation of lands in question, she could have produced at least tax paid

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:5931 WP No. 68449 of 2011

¶48

receipts. Admittedly, no such documents are available with the petitioner. But the Tribunal order discloses that the tax paid receipts were produced by respondent No.1.

¶49

Under these circumstances, I do not find any

¶50

reasons to interfere with the said order. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The petition is dismissed.

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Tanuja D/O. Homi Belgaumvala v. Khasim Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tanuja D/O. Homi Belgaumvala v. Khasim Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naganagouda S/O. Shivanagouda Neeralagi, Vs Balappa S/O. Fakkirappa Jogannavar

The Registrar Vs Smt.Shakuntala W/O. Gangadhar Sadani

Basappa S/O Channamallappa Naragund Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shri Adiveppa S/O Somalingappa Bolannavar Vs State of Karnataka

Ningappa S/O. Basappa Desai Vs the State of Karnataka

Atc Telecome Tower Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Government of Karnataka