Dismissed

Khajesab S/O. Ummarsab Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024WP/69873/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an impugned order granting occupancy rights to the deceased Kariyappa under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977. The court held that revenue records presuming tenancy status before the appointed date were valid in the absence of rebuttal evidence.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the Land Tribunal's order granting occupancy rights is dismissed.

Khajesab S/O. Ummarsab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:200 WP No. 69873 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 69873 OF 2012 (LR-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KHAJESAB S/O. UMMARSAB MULLA AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. HASANABADI, TQ: HANAGAL DIST: HAVERI

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUEVIKASA SOUDHABANGALORE BY THE UNDER SECRETARY

¶14

THE LAND TRIBUNAL HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI, BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶16

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Date: 2024.01.08 11:27:42 +0530

¶17

KARIYAPPA M/O. CHANNAVVA CHANNAYYANAVAR @ KOTAGAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SANNAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR@ KOTAGAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS KARIYAVVA W/O. SANNAPPA CHANNAYYANAVARAGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKR/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, HAVERI

¶18

SHIVAPPA S/O. SANNAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR @ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶19

GIRISH S/O. SANNAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:200 WP No. 69873 of 2012

¶21

@ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶22

SURESH S/O. SANNAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR @ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶23

SANNA GUTTEPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR

¶24

@ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶25

YELLAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR @ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶26

RAMAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR @ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶27

BASAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR @ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶28

YALLAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR @ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶29

FAKIRAVVA D/O. KARIYAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR @ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶30

KANNAVVA D/O. KARIYAPPA CHANNAYYANAVAR @ KOTAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURER/O. CHEERANAHALLI, TQ:HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. DINESH M.KULKARNI FOR R4-R7 & R9-R11; R13 SERVED; R3, R8 & R12 ABATED)

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:200 WP No. 69873 of 2012

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO:QUASH THE ORDER DATED:24/01/2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.GRANT INTERIM ORDER, STAYING THE EXECUTION AND OPERATION OF THE ORDER DATED:24/01/2012, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, INCLUDING ALL FURTHER STEPS AND ACTION.POST WP BEFORE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

One Sri Kariyappa s/o Mannavva Channayyanavar filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (for short `Act’) for grant of occupancy right in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.48/2B measuring 2 acres 36 guntas situated at Hasanabadi village, Taluk Hangal District, Haveri District stating that, he was cultivating the land in question as tenant on the appointed date on crop share basis from 1944 to 1946. The Land Tribunal by the impugned order dated 24.1.2012 acceded to the request of the applicant, and granted the occupancy right in favour of the deceased Kariyappa. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land is an inam land, and therefore, the deceased Kariyappa was not entitled for grant of occupancy right under the provisions of the said Act. He further submits that the Land Tribunal, in the absence of any material to establish that the deceased Kariyappa was cultivating the land in question as

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:200 WP No. 69873 of 2012

¶40

tenant, has granted the occupancy right, and the same is not sustainable in law.

¶41

The learned counsel for the respondents No.4 to 7 and 9 to 11 submits that the deceased Kariyappa was a tenant prior to the 1^st day of March, 1974, and he having cultivated the land consecutively for a period of three years prior to 1.3.1974, the Land Tribunal has granted the occupancy right in his favour. He further submits that the revenue records clearly indicated that the deceased Kariyappa was cultivating the subject land as tenant under the petitioner since 1944, and the Land Tribunal has rightly granted the occupancy right, and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶42

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶43

Section 5 of the Act deals with ri ght to be registered as an occupant and it states that every tenant of the Inamdar shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant of lands in respect of which he was a tenant immediately before the first day of March, 1974. In the instant case, the deceased Kariyappa was cultivating the subject land as a tenant from 1944, and the tenancy was not extinguished as on the appointed date. The entries in the revenue records have got presumptive value, and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the Land Tribunal has rightly granted the occupancy right stating that the deceased was

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC-D:200 WP No. 69873 of 2012

¶46

cultivating the subject land as tenant on crop share basis. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petition is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

BKM

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75

Khajesab S/O. Ummarsab Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khajesab S/O. Ummarsab Mulla 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

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

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

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

Lmcs Infra Holdings Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Basavaraju Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Yallawwa W/O Chandrappa Madar Vs the State of Karnataka