Allowed

Sri Somanna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2025WP/10308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Karnataka High Court was surprised by the four-decade pendency of a Form No. 7 application for occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act filed by the petitioner's father. Finding inaction by the Land Tribunal, the Court directed it to adjudicate the claim within six months of notice service and listed parties for appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Land Tribunal directed to serve notices, inquire into the claim, and dispose of the matter within six months of notice service.

Sri Somanna Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:643 WP No. 10308 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10308 OF 2024 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SOMANNA S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

¶9

SRI NARENDRA .H.S S/O SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE R/O HANCHARAHALLI MUNDUR, BANGALORE-560 049.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SYED HUSSAIN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K R PURAM, BANGALORE-560036.

¶18

THE LAND TRIBUNAL BANGALORE EAST TALUK

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:643 WP No. 10308 of 2024

¶21

KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA, HCGP)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 LAND TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF CASE BEARING LRF(B) 972/76-77 VIDE ANNX-F EXPEDITIOUSLY.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The captioned petition is filed by the legal heirs of original applicant/tenant seeking mandamus against respondent No.4/Land Tribunal to decide Form No.7 filed by the father of petitioner No.1/Kempegowda.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶30

The present case presents a deeply unfortunate and regrettable situation. The father of the first petitioner, Kempegowda, had submitted an application in Form No. 7, seeking the grant of occupancy rights under the provisions

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:643 WP No. 10308 of 2024

¶33

of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which came into effect several decades ago. However, despite the passage of nearly forty years since the filing of this application, it has remained unattended and undecided, highlighting a glaring lapse in the adjudicatory process. As a result of this prolonged inaction, the petitioners have been left with no alternative but to approach this Court, seeking an appropriate direction against respondent No. 4, the Land Tribunal. The petitioners implore this Court to direct the Tribunal to initiate an enquiry and adjudicate upon the long-pending application in Form No. 7, filed by the father of the first petitioner, without any further delay.

¶34

The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short "KLR Act") and the Amendment in 1974 was enacted by the State Legislature with an object of bringing out reforms in agrarian relationships. Chapter III of the KLR Act covers conferment of ownership on tenants. Section 44 deals with vesting of land with the State Government and accordingly, provides that all lands held by or in

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:643 WP No. 10308 of 2024

¶37

possession of tenants(including tenants against whom a decree or order for eviction) immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, shall, with effect on and from the appointed date i.e. 1.3.1974, stand transferred to and vest in the State Government. Section 45 of the KLR Act provides for an opportunity to the tenants to get registered as occupants of land after certain conditions are fulfilled. The amendment Act intends to abolish the rights of landlord and confer ownership on the actual tillers of the soil.

¶38

The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as amended in 1974, was enacted with the primary objective of abolishing intermediary rights and conferring ownership

¶39

of agricultural lands on the actual tillers of the soil. Sections 44 and 45 of the KLR Act explicitly aim to vest such lands in the State Government and provide an opportunity for tenants to register as occupants under specified conditions. In this context, the inaction of respondent No.4, the Land Tribunal, to adjudicate the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:643 WP No. 10308 of 2024

¶42

tenancy rights claimed by the petitioners' family over four decades has resulted in a prolonged denial of justice. The petitioners assert that the father of the first petitioner was a lawful tenant of the land in question as of the appointed date, i.e., March 1, 1974. This assertion, supported by the filing of Form No.7 under the Act, necessitates a timely and lawful determination by the Land Tribunal. The petitioners’ claim remains unaddressed despite their vested right to seek adjudication. This Court, therefore, finds it imperative to direct respondent No.4 to consider and decide the petitioners' application in accordance with the provisions of the law.

¶43

The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), upon instructions, has submitted that the petitioners' family has indeed filed Form No.7 as required under the KLR Act, claiming occupancy rights. However, it has been revealed that no substantive steps have been taken by respondent No.4, the Land Tribunal, to adjudicate this claim. The matter has remained pending

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:643 WP No. 10308 of 2024

¶46

for an unreasonably long period, depriving the petitioners

¶47

of the resolution they are legally entitled to under the Act.

¶48

It is a matter of grave concern that over four decades have elapsed without any resolution of the petitioners' application. Such inordinate delay in adjudication not only undermines the purpose of the legislation but also violates the principles of fairness and justice. The inaction of respondent No.4 compels this Court to intervene and issue an appropriate writ of mandamus. It is imperative that the Land Tribunal expeditiously considers and disposes of the petitioners' claim, ensuring adherence to the statutory framework and principles of natural justice. This Court deems it fit and proper to direct respondent No.4 to adjudicate the rights of the petitioners without further delay, providing the relief to which they may lawfully be entitled.

¶49

For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:643 WP No. 10308 of 2024

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶54

(ii) Respondent No.4, the Land Tribunal, is directed to promptly issue fresh notices to all interested parties. Upon completion of the service of notice, Respondent No.4 shall conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter and decide the petitioners' claim within an outer limit of six months from the date on which the service of notice is completed.

¶55

(iii) Since the petitioners are represented by their counsel, they are directed to appear before the Land Tribunal on 27.01.2025 without fail, to facilitate the proceedings.

¶56

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶57

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74

Sri Somanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Somanna v. 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 Gurumurthy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Vijay Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Basappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S M Anjinappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Girish Poojary Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunatha T v Vs the State of Karnataka