Sri. M. Huchharayappa Vs the Land Tribunal

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 & 2, SRI. ARAVIND C. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a) TO R3(e); SRI. C.M. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 16.12.2019 NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶53

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.9.2015, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - DEPUTY COMMISISONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE FORM NO.1 FILED THE PETITIONER; AND ETC.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

ORAL ORDER

¶57

Heard Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for

¶58

the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State; Sri. Anand C. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 (A to E) and Sri. C.M. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

¶59

5 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:34921 WP No. 49296 of 2015

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

In the present writ petition, the petitioners

¶63

have assailed the order dated 18.09.2015 (AnnexureE) passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 28.02.1987 (Annexure-F) passed by the Land Tribunal.

¶64

The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner-Kariyappa, was cultivating the land bearing Sy. No.11, measuring 1 acre 16 guntas, situated at Maragondanahalli Hobli, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District. In order to establish that the petitioner's father was cultivating the land in question, the petitioner has produced the RTC extracts, which are marked as Annexure-A series.

¶65

It is further stated that respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed an application seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of the very same land without

¶66

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34921 WP No. 49296 of 2015

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

impleading the petitioner's father as a party to the said proceedings. It is also stated that the father of the petitioners had independently filed an application seeking grant of occupancy rights before the

¶69

competent authority.

¶70

The Land Tribunal, by its order dated 16.04.1992, rejected the application filed by the father of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, original petitioner preferred W.P. No.25850/1998, and this Court, by order dated 13.07.1999 (Annexure-C), set aside the said order and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for consideration of the original petitioner's application as well as the claims of the rival claimants.

¶71

Thereafter, respondent No.1 failed to take up the matter for consideration in terms of the directions issued by this Court. Consequently, the

¶72

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34921 WP No. 49296 of 2015

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

petitioner was constrained to file W.P.

¶75

No.26461/2012, wherein this Court, by order dated 08.10.2012 (Annexure-D), directed respondent No.2

¶76

to conduct an enquiry on the applications in Form

¶77

No.1 filed by the original petitioner as well as the rival claimants.

¶78

It is further stated that the revenue records

¶79

stand in the name of the petitioners' father. However, respondent No.2, by order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-E), rejected the original petitioner's claim, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

¶80

It is also the case of the petitioners that original petitioner was not aware of the proceedings culminating in the order dated 28.02.1987 passed by the Land Tribunal in LRF-CR-1,2/1987-88, and therefore had not challenged the same earlier. The

¶81

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:34921 WP No. 49296 of 2015

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

original petitioner has produced the certified copy of the order sheet as Annexure-F. According to the original petitioner, he continues to be in possession and cultivation of the land in question.

¶84

Having heard the learned counsel appearing

¶85

for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material on record, particularly the RTC extracts produced at Annexure-A series, it is evident that the name of the petitioner's father-Kariyappa, is reflected in the revenue records from the agricultural period 1969-70 to 1997-98.

¶86

It is also pertinent to note that this Court, by order dated 13.07.1999 passed in W.P. No.25850/1998 (Annexure-C), while considering the dispute relating to the very same property, had set aside the orders dated 14.04.1992 and 28.02.1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Honnali, and remitted

¶87

9 -

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:34921 WP No. 49296 of 2015

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, for fresh consideration of the applications filed by the petitioner as well as the rival claimants in Form No.1.

¶91

In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it is the contention of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has failed to consider and comply with the observations and directions issued by this Court in its order dated 13.07.1999.

¶92

A perusal of the impugned order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-E) passed by respondent No.2 clearly indicates that the authority has not taken into consideration the observations made by this Court in W.P. No.25850/1998. On the contrary, respondent No.2 has proceeded on an erroneous premise that the petitioner had not challenged the orders dated 28.02.1987 and 23.03.1988. However, those very orders had already been set aside by this Court in its

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:34921 WP No. 49296 of 2015

¶94

10 -

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

order dated 13.07.1999 passed in W.P.

¶97

No.25850/1998 (Annexure-C).

¶98

The aforesaid aspect clearly demonstrates

¶99

that respondent No.2 has failed to apply its mind to the original records and has arrived at an erroneous conclusion while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration by respondent

¶100

No.2. Accordingly, the following:

¶101

ORDER

¶102

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶103

ii) The order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-E)

¶104

passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside.

¶105

iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.2

¶106

for fresh consideration. Respondent No.2

¶107

11 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:34921 WP No. 49296 of 2015

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

shall reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in W.P. No.25850/1998, decided on 13.07.1999.

¶111

iv) Since the petitioner is represented through learned counsel, and in order to avoid any further delay in the matter, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 20.08.2026 at 3:00 p.m. Respondent No.2 shall thereafter proceed with the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶112

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶113

SB

¶114

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Sri. M. Huchharayappa v. the Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. Huchharayappa v. the Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Chikkanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bhimasethu Munivrunda Matha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Venkatamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri P Das Vs the Bengaluru District

Smt Gangamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath Murthy Vs the Tahsildar