Sri. Vidhyadhar Bandu Dhanawade, Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 66860 OF 2011 (LR-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. VIDHYADHAR BANDU DHANAWADE, AGED: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF YEXAMBA, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER VIJAYKUMAR BANDU DHANAWADE (PETITIONER NO. 2).

¶8

SRI. VIJAYKUMAR BANDU DHANAWADE, AGED : 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF YEXAMBA, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM.

¶9

V N

¶10

BADIGER

¶11

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

¶12

SMT. SHANTHABAI RAJAGOUDA MANUCHAGE, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF EXAMBA, TALUK: CHIKODI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER VIJAYKUMAR BANDU DHANAWADE.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.

¶18

THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHIKODI, BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶19

SHASHIKUMAR GURULINGAPPA HUKKERI AGE: MAJOR, (SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S)

¶20

3a. SMT. VIDYA SHASHIKUMAR HUKKERI AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. EXAMBA, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

3b. VASANTI HANUMANT TERDAL AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HALLUR VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A) AND R3(B)

¶24

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 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 BEARING NO.KLR/EXAMBA/SR-58+323 DATED 22.07.2011 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, CHIKKODI PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-‘H’ IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners have approached this Court

¶31

seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order bearing No.KLR/EXAMBA/SR-58+323 dated 22.07.2011 passed by the Land Tribunal, Chikkodi produced at Annexure-‘H’.

¶32

Heard Sri.V.M.Sheelavant, learned counsel for

¶33

the petitioners and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.Shivaraj S Ballolli, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(A) to 3(B).

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners are in possession of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.77 of Examba village of Chikodi taluk. Grass is being grown in a portion of the land for grazing cattle, and in the remaining portion, several crops are being grown. It is stated that respondent No.3 was the owner of the said land the petitioners were the tenants.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 filed a suit for eviction which came to be decreed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have approached this Court by filing an appeal. The said appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment of eviction came to be set aside. Since it was found that the petitioners were the tenants in respect of the land in question, the matter was ordered to be referred to the land Tribunal. The land Tribunal held an enquiry, recorded the statements of both parties and passed the impugned order as per AnnexureH.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even though in the body of the impugned order, the land Tribunal categorically held that the petitioners were in possession/occupation and cultivation of the land and also rejected the claim of respondent No.3 that grass was grown naturally in the land, committed an error in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. He refers to Section 2 (1) (b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶39

(for short the ‘Act’) to contend that the definition of the word ‘Agriculture’ as defined under the Act includes raising of grass. Therefore, petitioners are the agriculturist and the tenants.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the statement of respondent No.3 recorded before the land Tribunal, wherein he categorically admitted that the petitioners were in possession of 4 acres of land in which they were raising grass and paying the land revenue. He also admits that the receipts produced by the petitioners bear signatures of the father of respondent No.3. All these admissions go to the root of the matter, but the same are ignored by the land Tribunal. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition.

¶41

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3(A) and 3(B) opposing the petition submit that even though petitioners are in possession of 4 acres of land, they are not the tenants as defined under

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶43

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Mere possession of the land by the petitioners will not entitle them for conferring occupancy rights.

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3(A) and 3(B) places reliance on the decision of this Court in Racha Naika V/s State of Karnataka¹ to contend that even though a portion of the land is given to a person to raise grass, he cannot be termed as a tenant or an agriculturist. Learned counsel placing reliance on this decision contend that the land Tribunal also placed reliance on the same decision to form an opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for conferring of rights under the Act, and there is no illegality in the order impugned. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶45

On perusal of the materials on record, initially the suit filed for eviction by respondent No.3 was decreed by the trial Court. However when an appeal was pending before this Court, it was found that the land in question is

¶46

1 ILR 1992 KAR 2930

¶47

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶48

an agricultural land where grass is being grown. The contention of respondent No.3 is that the grass is growing naturally as it is on the bank of a river. But this defense taken by respondent No.3 was rejected by the land Tribunal as not a probable defense.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of respondent No.3 recorded before the land Tribunal. Respondent No.3 admitted in categorical terms that one Vijaykumar Bandu Dhanawade was in possession of 4 acres of land on the western side, since 1958. He also admitted that the decree passed by the trial Court for evicting petitioners was set aside by this Court. The witness, even though initially denied that the land revenue was paid by the petitioners, on tendering the revenue receipts, he admitted the same and stated that the revenue was paid by the petitioners. Witness also admitted rent receipt dated 02.06.1954 and

¶50

stated that the receipt bears signature of his father. Respondent No.3 also admitted that there is reference to

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶52

growing of various crops in the disputed land since 1964 in the revenue records. These admissions on the part of respondent No.3 before the land Tribunal goes to the root of the matter, and in the light of such admissions, the defense taken by respondent No.3 that grass was being grown naturally in open area since it was a riverbed, or that the petitioners were in possession of the property but not as tenants cannot be accepted.

¶53

Once there are prima facie materials to show that the petitioners are in occupation of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.77 and they were paying the land revenue as per the rent receipt dated 2.06.1954, wherein the father of respondent No.3 has signed the same, the contention of petitioners that they were tenants in respect of said portion of land is to be accepted. It is the contention of petitioners that in a portion of land grass was being grown for grazing cattle, and in the remaining extent of land, various crops are being grown. The record of rights since from 1964 discloses that various crops are being grown in

¶54

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶55

this land, which substantiates the contentions of the petitioners. When such clinching materials are available on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are successful in proving their contentions regarding their tenancy rights over the property.

¶56

I have gone through the impugned order of the land Tribunal rejecting claim of the petitioners. The land Tribunal refers to admission given by respondent No.3 to form an opinion that petitioners are in possession of land in question and they are growing grass. It has rejected the defense taken by respondent No.3 that the grass is being grown naturally. Inspite of that it proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioners on the ground that even though the petitioners are in possession of land in question, such possession is not as tenants. There is no basis for the land Tribunal to form such an opinion in the light of fatal admissions given by respondent No.3.

¶57

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the land Tribunal is liable to

¶58

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4305 WP No. 66860 of 2011

¶59

be set aside and the claim of the petitioners that they are

¶60

the tenants in respect of 4 acres of land in question is to be accepted. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i) The petition is allowed.

¶63

ii) The impugned order is set aside.

¶64

Consequently, the petitioners are declared as tenants in respect of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.77 of Examba village of Chikodi taluk and they are entitled for conferring of occupancy rights.

¶65

Sd/(M.G.UMA) JUDGE

¶66

VB

¶67

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

Sri. Vidhyadhar Bandu Dhanawade, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vidhyadhar Bandu Dhanawade, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hugar Shanthamma W/O Late Hugar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Indiraje W/O Bhairava Singh Ghorpade Vs the Joint Director of Land Records

Gangadharayya S/O Mahantlingayya Hireamth Aliyas Kustagi Vs the Deputy Commisioner

Vasant Bindu Desai Vs Land Tribunal, Hubli

Malleshappa S/O. Basappa Holikatti, Vs Kottreshappa S/O. Parvatapa Bukkashatti

Sri. Jagannath Vishnu Patil S/O Sri. Vishnu Patil, Vs the Deputy Commissioner