Karnataka High Court
Shiddawwa W/O. Ningappa Raddi vs The Land Tribunal, Gokak on 20 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507
WP No. 65187 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.65187/2011(LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHIDDAWWA W/O. NINGAPPA RADDI,
AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: URABINAHATTI - 591 321,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI,
REPTD., BY HER P.A. HOLDER,
DAUGHTER, SMT. NEELAWWA
W/O. SATTEPPA RADDI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, GOKAK,
BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA E 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location:
High Court of
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE,
Karnataka DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. SMT. ASAD BEGUM
W/O. UMAR KHAN DESAI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: JALAGAR GALLI,
BELAGAVI - 590 002.
4. NINGAPPA BALAPPA ANKALAGI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
5. SMT. SUVARNA
W/O. SHIVANAND ANALAGI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507
WP No. 65187 of 2011
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: URUBINAHATTI - 591 321,
TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SMT. GEETA
W/O. SHIVANAND ANKALAGI,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: URUBINAHATTI - 591 321,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. BASAVARAJ
S/O. SHIVANAND ANKALAGI,
AGE: 5 YEARS, MINOR, REPTD., BY MINOR
GUARDIAN MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.5,
SMT. GEETA W/O. SHIVANAND ANKALAGI,
R/O: URUBINAHATTI - 591 321,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAY S KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 TO R6;
SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
PETITONER AGAINST R3 IS DISMISSED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
27/07/2011, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, LAND TRIBUNAL,
GOKAK PRODUCED AS ANENXURE-A. BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI ORDER OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER, ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 LAND
TRIBUNAL, TO GRANT OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF THE PETITION LANDS
IN SY.NO.40/11 MEASURING 1A-08 GS AND SY.NO.42/11
MEASURING 1A-04 Gs, SITUATED IN MADAVAL VILLAGE, TAL:
GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM, TO THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR BY
HER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507
WP No. 65187 of 2011
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking grant of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.07.2011 passed by respondent No.1, produced as per Annexure-A and also to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to grant occupancy right in favour of the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri Ravi S.Balikai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinay S.Koujalagi learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the husband of the petitioner by name Ningappa Raddi was the occupant and the cultivator of the lands measuring 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy.No.40/11 and 1 acre 4 guntas in Sy.No.42/11 of Madaval village, Gokak Taluk as tenant. He was in cultivation of the same since for more than 55 years. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Form No.7 on 22.10.1975 for confirmation of occupancy rights in her -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011 favour. The Record of Rights were standing in the name of Ningappa Raddi, the husband of the petitioner. However, one Ningappa Ankalagi, the father of respondent No.4 to 6 had also filed Form No.7 seeking confirmation of occupancy right in his favour claiming to be the tenant in respect of the very same lands under the very same landlord.
4. The Land Tribunal clubbed both these claims and passed order on 31.07.2002, rejecting the claim of Ningappa Ankalagi and conferring occupancy right in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the said Ningappa Angalaki has preferred W.P.No.32545/2002 before this Court, which was came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal, Gokak for holding fresh enquiry in respect of Form No.7 filed by the petitioner and the deceased Ningappa Ankalagi.
5. The Land Tribunal, Gokak, held fresh enquiry and passed the impugned order on 27.07.2011 rejecting Form No.7 filed by the petitioner and granting occupancy -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011 right in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are the legal representatives of deceased Ningappa Ankalagi. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, Annexures-B and C produced along with the petition disclose that, the Record of Rights since 1958-59 stood in the name of Ningappa Raddi, the husband of the petitioner as tenant. Later the revenue records were in the name of the petitioner. Suddenly, during 1972-73, when the Mysore Land Reforms Act was in force, the name of petitioner was came to be deleted without any enquiry and ME.No.5164 was certified. Petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard before effecting such mutation entry. Even as per the provisions of Mysore Land Reforms Act, the tenancy could be extinguished only under two circumstances i.e., by surrender of the land by the tenant and resumption of the land by the landlord. In the present case there was neither surrender made by the tenant nor there was resumption by the landlord. Under such -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011 circumstances, there cannot be any extinguishment of the tenancy held by the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel submitted that Ningappa Ankalagi had filed the suit in O.S.No.366/2000 against the landlord seeking declaration of his title as the same was perfected by adverse possession and for permanent injunction. The said suit was came to be compromise between the land owner and Ningappa Ankalagi and a compromise decree was came to be passed on 06.11.2000 as per Annexure-G. This discloses that Ningappa Ankalagi and the landlord were colluding with one another to get the decree of the Civil Court, on contention taken by Ningappa Ankalagi, which is quiet contrary to the contention, that he was a tenant in respect of the lands under the landlord. Admittedly, none of the record of rights before 1972-73 referred to the name of Ningappa Ankalagi as tenant. Whereas, the name of Ningappa Raddi, the husband of the petitioner was shown as an ordinary tenant in respect of the lands since 1958-59. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011
8. Learned counsel further submitted that, in the order dated 31.07.2002, the Land Tribunal has considered the claim made by Ningappa Ankalagi which was only on the basis of ME.No.5164, which was came to be certified during 1972-73 and not earlier to that. It is also held that it is a clear case of collusion between the landlord and Ningappa Ankalagi. Learned counsel referred to Section 21 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 to contend that there cannot be any sub-letting of the land held by the tenant. Under such circumstances, the contention of Ningappa Ankalagi that there was either subletting or assignment of tenancy cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has not considered any of these facts, proceeded to pass the impugned order. Therefore he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.
9. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.4 to 6 opposing the petition submitted that Annexure-R1 produced along with the objections statement discloses that the petitioner himself has given up her claim over the -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011 land in question and Ningappa Ankalagi became the tenant in respect of two items of the properties referred to above. Accordingly, ME.No.5164 was came to be certified on 28.07.1972. As per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the Tribunal is required to be consider the possession and cultivation of the land by the applicant as on 01.03.1974. When admittedly, Ningappa Ankalagi was in possession and cultivation of the land as tenant on the prescribed date, the Tribunal has justified in passing the order. Therefore he prays for dismissal of the petition.
10. Perused the materials on record.
11. There was rival claim by Ningappa Raddi and Ningappa Ankalagi in respect of the very same two items of the properties referred to above. Initially, the Tribunal held enquiry and conferred occupancy right in favour of the petitioner being the wife of Ningappa Raddi. However, the said order was came to be passed as per order passed by this Court in W.P.No.32545/2002. After remand, the Land Tribunal held fresh enquiry and passed the impugned -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011 order on 27.07.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and conferring occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 being legal representatives of deceased Ningappa Ankalagi, which is called in question before this Court.
12. The admitted facts of the case are that, as per Annexure-B and C, the name of Ningappa Raddi was found as a tenant in respect of the lands in question since 1958-
59. It is not in dispute that his name continued to be as tenant till 1972-73 and then the name of the petitioner was came to be entered as tenant after death of Ningappa Raddi. Suddenly, on the very same day name of Ningappa Ankalagi was came to be entered on the basis of ME.No.5164, according to which, petitioner has requested to mutate the name of Shiddawwa Ningappa Raddi and accordingly the mutation was certified. It is pertinent to note that certification of the said mutation was on 28.07.1972 i.e., just before appointed date - 01.03.1974.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011
13. It is pertinent to note that, admittedly Ningappa Ankalagi had filed the suit O.S.No.366/2000 before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gokak against the land owner seeking declaration of his title in respect of the very same property as owner in possession of the same by adverse possession and for permanent injunction. The copy of the plaint produced as per Annexure-F discloses that Ningappa Raddi has taken up a specific contention that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and he perfected his title by adverse possession against the land owner. Annexure-G is the copy of the compromise decree whereunder Ningappa Raddi and the land owner compromised the matter and the suit was came to be decreed as prayed for.
14. It is pertinent to note that O.S.No.366/2000 was came to be filed on 12.09.2000 and it was came to be decreed in terms of the compromise petition on 30.10.2000. Prima facie it discloses that there was collusion between Ningappa Ankalagi and the land owner
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011 to enable the plaintiff-Ningappa Ankalagi to get the declaration of his title by adverse possession. When Ningappa Ankalagi contended that he is the owner of the properties in question as he has perfected his title by adverse possession, he cannot contend that he was the tenant cultivating the land under the land owner. These two contentions taken by Ningappa Ankalagi is quiet contradictory to one another, rather it is mutually destructive in nature. Even though the Land Tribunal has considered the decree passed in O.S.No.366/2000 declaring him as the owner of the lands by adverse possession, unfortunately same was held to be one of the grounds to confer occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6.
15. It is pertinent to note that the Land Tribunal at the first instance, when Form No.7 filed by the petitioner was accepted while rejecting the Form No.7 submitted by Ningappa Ankalagi, passed an order on 31.07.2002 referring to the compromise decree entered into between
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011 Ningappa Ankalagi and the landlord in the suit O.S.No.366/2000 and recorded a finding that there was collusion between the two. The materials on record prima facie support such an opinion that was expressed by the Land Tribunal at the first instance. The contention of respondent Nos.4 to 6 that during 1972-73, the petitioner has given up her claim over the property and permitted Ningappa Ankalagi to be in possession of the property is hard to believe. If at all, that was the truth there was no occasion for Ningappa Ankalagi to file a suit contending that he was in adverse possession of the land and perfected his title by adverse possession.
16. The material on record discloses that since from the undisputed point of time name of Ningappa Raddi was found as the occupant in cultivation of the land as tenant. Form No.7 was promptly filed by the petitioner after death of Ningappa Raddi. There is nothing on record to show that either there was surrender of the land by the tenant or resumption of the land by the owner. Under such
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011 circumstances, I do not have any hesitation to hold that it was Ningappa Raddi who was the tenant and subsequent to his death, it is the petitioner who was tenant in occupation and cultivation of the lands as tenant and therefore entitled for confirmation of occupancy right.
17. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are not entitled for any relief as Ningappa Ankalagi cultivating the land as tenant is not proved by any of the materials, but on the other hand, the material discloses that he has taken mutual destructive contention and he is not entitled for confirmation of occupancy right.
18. It is brought to the notice of the Court that respondent No.1-the Land Tribunal, Gokak is not functional even though hundred of such cases are pending consideration by it. There is no justification for the Government for not reconstituting the Land Tribunal, when several cases that are to be considered by the Land Tribunal, Gokak are pending. Therefore respondent No.2- the State is through its Secretary to the Revenue
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011 Department is directed to take necessary steps for reconstitution of the Land Tribunal, Gokak and make it functional within a reasonable time at-least within six months from today.
19. I have gone through the impugned order dated 27.07.2011 passed by respondent No.1. The said order is without any application of mind and the same cannot be confirmed. Therefore I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 27.07.2011 passed by respondent No.1 produced as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
iii) Respondent No.2-the State, through its Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department is directed to take necessary steps for reconstitution of the Land Tribunal, Gokak and make it functional within a reasonable time, at-least within six months from today.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:5507 WP No. 65187 of 2011
iv) Respondent No.1-the Land Tribunal is directed to confer occupancy right in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands in Sy.No.40/11 measuring 1.08 acres and in Sy.No.42/11 measuring 1.04 guntas situated at Madavala village of Gokak Taluk, within three months from the date of its reconstitution. Failing which, the petitioner is entitled to take necessary action in this regard.
SD/-
JUDGE EM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22