Sri G Annappa Sherugar Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. G. ANNAPPA SHERUGAR S/O LATE DASAPPA SHERUGAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, GOPUTTANAMANE, SOORKUNDA, BYNDOOR VILLAGE, POST: MAYYADI-576214, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶15

THE LAND TRIBUNAL KUNDAPURA KUNDAPURA -576 201, UDUPI DISTRICT, BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶16

SRI ANGADI NARAYANA SHERUGARA S/O LATE RAMAYYA SHERUGA,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:18915 WP No. 23016 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED MAJOR, ANGADI MANE, SOORKUNDA, BYNDOOR VILLAGE, POST: MAYYADI-576214, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 )

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2016 IN TRI 10910-77-78 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXURE-H; REJECT FORM NO.7 IN TRI 10910-77-78 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN SO FAR AS SY.NO.124/1 OF BYNDOOR VILALGE.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure-H) in TRI 1091077-78 passed by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal conferring the occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3, to an extent of 0.26 acre in

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:18915 WP No. 23016 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Sy.No.124/1, and to an extent of 0.09 1/4^th acre at Byndoor village, Kunkapura taluk.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that, the father of the petitioner-Dasappa Sherugar was allotted with Sy.No.124/1, measuring 0.25 acres of land in the Partition Deed, and thereafter, RTC extracts have been mutated by the revenue authorities. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the revenue records were mutated in favour of petitioner and same is reflected in the RTC extracts produced at AnnexureB. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, an extent of land in RTC extracts in respect of the Sy.No.124/6,

¶33

was reduced from 0.25 cents to 15.75 cents and 0.09.25 cents in the land in question and as such, the petitioner has obtained the copies of proceedings conducted before the respondent No.2- Land Tribunal as per Annexure-H to the writ petition. It the is the contention of the petitioner that, though the land

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18915 WP No. 23016 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

claimed by the contesting respondents (tenants) is to an extent of 12 cents in Sy.No.124/1, however, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights to an extent of 0.26 in Sy.No. 124/1, and same has resulted in diminishing the area of land belonging to the petitioner and thereafter, this writ petition is filed challenging the order of Land Tribunal produced at Annexure-H.

¶37

I have heard Sri. Chadranath Ariga K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. Nagendra Kumar K., learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶38

Sri. Chadranath Ariga K., learned counsel

¶39

for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to Form No.7 filed by the father of the private respondents herein and submitted that, the private

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18915 WP No. 23016 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

respondents have filed Form No.7, seeking occupancy rights under Section 48(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, to an extent to of 0.12 cents, however, the Land Tribunal has granted 0.26 cents, and in view of the said discrepancy, the land to an extent of 0.25 cents belonging to the petitioner has been reduced and therefore, sought for interference of this court. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the though the petitioner is not a claimant or the land lord in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, however, the Land Tribunal has erroneously, passed the order, resulting in reduction of the land without the knowledge of the petitioner and same has been granted in favour of private respondents (tenants) and as such, sought for interference of this court.

¶43

Per contra, Sri. Nagendra Kumar K., learned

¶44

counsel for the respondent No.3, submitted that the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18915 WP No. 23016 of 2017

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

petitioner has no legal right as the title of the petitioner itself is to be adjudicated in a proper forum and therefore, since the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and as such, no interference is called for in this writ petition and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶48

Sri. K.P.Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondentState supported the contention of the respondent No.3.

¶49

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is emerged from Form No.7 filed by the respondent No.3, that the land is to an extent of 0.12 cents in land bearing Sy.No.124/1 (Annexure-D) is claimed by the tenants. The Land Tribunal by order dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure-H), has granted the occupancy

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18915 WP No. 23016 of 2017

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

rights in favour of the respondent No.3, to an extent

¶53

of 0.26 cents and 0.09 1/4^th cents in land bearing Sy.No.124/1 and 124/6P2. Taking into consideration

¶54

the RTC extracts produced by the petitioner at Annexure-E, though it is rebuttable in nature, however, it is shown that, the petitioner herein is owner of the land bearing Sy.No.124/6 to an extent of 25 cents. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 contended by disputing the title of the petitioner herein is concerned and same cannot be adjudicated unless a competent court pass decree in favour of petitioner is concerned. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that, while granting occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.3, Land Tribunal has committed an error in including the land belonging to the petitioner and in that view of the matter, taking into consideration the Form No.7, (Annexure-D), wherein, it is stated that the respondent No.3 has

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18915 WP No. 23016 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

made a claim for 0.12 cents in Sy.No.124/1, however, the Land Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by granting 0.26 cents in Sy.No.124/1 and 0.09 1/4^th in Sy.No.124/6P2 and in that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in order to make necessary correction insofar land in favour of respondent No.3 is concerned, the Land Tribunal shall, afford a fair opportunity to the petitioner herein in respect of subject land is concerned and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, taking into consideration the claim made by the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶60