Devagala Vishnumurthy Rao Vs State of Karnatakaa

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K.PUJAR., HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI. T.HAREESH BHANDARY., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (A-D) V/O DT. 22/1/24 R4-R6 ARE SERVED R7 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.27.12.2011 PASSED IN CASE NO.LRY98-53-222-223 TRI-3255-4282/81-82 ON THE FILE OF THE R2 LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI, IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE LAND IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶47

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

¶48

4 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a writ

¶54

of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.12.2011 passed in case bearing No.LRY-98-53-222-223-TRI-32554282/81-82, by the 2^nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Udupi, whereby, the 2^nd respondent has granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3^rd respondent (since deceased represented by respondents No.4 to 6) in land bearing Sy.No.39/9, measuring 1 Acre and 31 Cents and Sy.No.39/12, measuring 23 Cents (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject lands') by rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶55

The grievance of the petitioner is that his fatherlate. Devagala Venkatakrishnaiah had filed the Application in Form No.7 on 06.11.1979, claiming occupancy rights in respect of the subject lands. However, the 3^rd respondent and his mother also filed Application in Form No.7 claiming

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

occupancy rights for the same lands. On an earlier occasion, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the 3^rd respondent on 01.10.1981 and the same was called in question by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.15405/1993 and this Court by order dated 19.03.2002 quashed the order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal for fresh consideration by holding an enquiry. After the remand order, though the petitioner had submitted all the necessary documents to prove the tenancy rights on the subject lands, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same and passed the impugned order by rejecting the claim of the petitioner and granting the same lands in favour of the 3^rd respondent and others. He would further submit that the 7^th respondent, who is the owner of the subject lands under whom the tenancy rights claimed by the petitioner, had filed a suit in S.C.No.378/1962 before the Court of the District Munsiff, Udupi, for the relief of eviction, which reveals that the petitioner was a chalageni tenant under

¶59

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

the 7^th respondent. Further, the petitioner has placed chalageni chits in the said suit. The said documents are though produced before the Tribunal, those documents were not considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶62

Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submits that, the Tribunal after considering the material documents and evidence placed on record, has passed the impugned order while granting the occupancy rights in favour of the 3^rd respondent. It is also contended that before passing an order, the Tribunal also conducted a spot inspection which clearly depicts that the 3^rd respondent and others are in possession of the subject

¶63

lands and they are paying tenancy tax. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference of this Court and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46621 WP No. 29619 of 2013

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶67

submissions made by learned counsels for both the parties and I have perused the entire records including the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent-Tribunal.

¶68

As could be seen from the records, the petitioner is claiming tenancy under the 7^th respondent in respect of the subject lands. On the other hand, the 3^rd respondent is also claiming the rights in respect of the same land. Though the Tribunal while passing the impugned order has conducted a spot inspection and perused the tax paid receipts, failed to consider the chalageni chits produced by petitioner. The vehement contention learned counsel for the petitioner is that, if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner, he will produce all the relevant documents to prove his tenancy. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal by extending opportunity to both the parties to put forth their respective claims along with necessary documents. The petitioner as well as the

¶69