Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayanthi vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.58686/2013 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYANTHI,
D/O LATE KITTA MOOLYA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
2. SMT.RADHA
D/O LATE KITTA MOOLYA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
3. SMT.BABY
D/O LATE KITTA MOOLYA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
4. SMT.RATHNA
D/O LATE KITTA MOOLYA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
5. SRI GOPALA
S/O LATE KITTA MOOLYA,
AGE 31 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
INDARU THOTA MANE HOUSE,
BELMAN VILLAGE AND POST,
2
KARKALA TALUK-574104,
UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRASANNA V. R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KARKALA
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.
3. MR.FEDRIK BONA CARDOZA,
S/O BONA PAUL CARDOZA,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT INDARU BAILU HOUSE,
BELMAN VILLAGE AND POST,
KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.
4. SRI SADHU MOOLYA,
S/O BADU MOOLYA,
AGE: MAJOR,
5. SRI RAJU MOOLYA,
S/O BADU MOOLYA,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT No.4 AND 5 ARE BOTH
R/AT INDARU THOTA MANE HOUSE,
BELMAN VILLAGE AND POST,
3
KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-574104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI H. JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R5 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 1.8.2019 WP AGAINST R4 STANDS
DISMISSED)
****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 26.12.2012 IN CASE No.T.R.L.74/81-82 PASSED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT LAND TRIBUNAL, KARKALA, IN SO FAR
AS DENYING THE CLAIM ON THE LAND MEASURING 0.98 ACRE
IN SY.No.129/1 OF BELMAN VILLAGE, KARKAL TALUK, UDUPI,
TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners in the present writ petition have sought for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.12.2012 made in Case No.T.R.L. 74/81-82 passed by the Land Tribunal, Karkala, in so far as rejecting the claim on the land measuring 0.98 acre in Sy.No.129/1 of Belman village, Karkala taluk, Udupi district and a writ of mandamus directing the Land Tribunal to consider the claim 4 in Form No.7 as per Annexure-D for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that father of the petitioners late Kitta Moolya and grand-father late Badu Moolya were the agricultural tenants under one Keshava Kamath in respect of several items of lands including the land in question, which were all in a compact block and being cultivated together. The predecessor of the petitioners executed Chalageni Chits dated 2.6.1958 and 5.8.1960 in favour of their landlord late Keshava Kamath in respect of the land in question and other lands. On 29.1.1964, the original landlord sold the lands including tenanted lands to one C.C.D' Cruze, in which sale deed there is a recital that the lands are in possession of the tenant Badu Moolya and there was another sale deed dated 26.3.1997 under which the 3rd respondent claimed to have purchased the lands even though the tenancy issue was pending before the Land Tribunal. Even the subsequent 5 landlord C.C.D' Cruze also used to issue Geni receipts by collecting the Geni both by way of money and money in kinds. After the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force in the year 1994, the father of the petitioners being agricultural tenant filed Form No.7 claiming conferment of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and other lands on 18.3.1975.
3. The 2nd respondent - Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry passed an order dated 28.12.1981 conferring occupancy rights on certain lands. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord - Govinda Kamath filed Writ Petition No.16138/1984 challenging the grant of occupancy rights to some extent. The predecessor of the petitioners had also filed W.P. No.199/1985 to the extent of rejection of their claim. Both the writ petitions were clubbed and allowed by the common order dated 6.3.1985. By the said order dated 6.3.1985, this Court quashed the order of the Land Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal 6 for fresh disposal after holding a common enquiry, in strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules.
4. It is further case of the petitioners that after remand, the petitioners appeared before the Land Tribunal and deposed with reference to the claim and occupation by producing the voluminous documents including the Chjalageni chits dated 20.4.1949, 2.6.1958, 5.8.1960 etc., On the other hand the original landlord and subsequent purchaser Mr. C.C.D' Cruze have never entered the witness box denying the claim of the predecessor of the petitioners as tenants, thereby admitted the claim. The 3rd respondent claiming to be the purchaser during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal appeared as landlord before the Land Tribunal and deposed that he is the owner of the land, but admitted that he does not aware in which year he purchased the land etc., The Land Tribunal considering the entire material on record by 7 the impugned order 26.12.2012 by majority view has conferred the occupancy rights in respect of certain lands based on the materials placed and evidence tendered in addition to the survey report. However, the members have not agreed for conferment of occupancy rights in respect of land measuring 0.98 acre in Sy.No.129/1 of Belman village and thereby refused to confer occupancy rights on the said land without assigning any reason. Hence, the present writ petition is filed only in so far as rejection of claim of the petitioners in respect of land measuring 0.98 acre in Sy.No.129/1.
5. Respondent No.3 filed statement of objections and contended that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in respect of other survey numbers and refusing in respect of Sy.No.129/1 is justified and further contended that the 3rd respondent has purchased portion of the land bearing Sy.No.129/1 measuring 98 cents along with other lands under the 8 registered sale deed dated 26.3.1997. The name of the vendor of the 3rd respondent has been entered in the RTC in respect of the said land from 1967-1968 to 1979-1980 and 1998 to 1999. It is further contended that pursuant to the purchase of the land in question, the 3rd respondent has been residing in the house constructed in the land in question and has been paying the taxes regularly. It is further contended that the 3rd respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till the date of filing the statement of objections and residing in the house situated in the land in question and that earlier to purchase of the land in question, the vendor of the 3rd respondent and previous to that the original owner, the said Govinde Keshava Kamath has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
6. It is further contended in the objections that the statement of the petitioners that the predecessors of the petitioners are the tenants under the erstwhile landlord 9 Govinda Keshava Kamath and that their grand-father has executed chalageni chits dated 2.6.1958 and 5.8.1960 in favour of the landlord late Govinda Keshava Kamath, is totally incorrect and baseless. It is further contended that the land in question is a non-agricultural land and the petitioners have not produced any document to show that they are the tenants in respect of the land in question and there is no evidence to show that the land in question has been brought under cultivation by the petitioners at any point of time. The Land Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners after giving sufficient opportunity and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to any relief before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
10
8. Sri Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition, has contended that admittedly the Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in respect of other survey numbers and rejected the claim of the petitioners in respect of Sy.No.129/1 measuring 98 cents ignoring the chalageni chit dated 2.6.1958. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. He further contended that the Land Tribunal based on the evidence on record, unanimously found that the lands are classified as Nanja, Bhagayath and punja and they were effectively cultivated and are all agricultural lands and therefore, there was no reason to deny the claim of the agricultural tenant in respect of one item of land. He further contended that the opinion of the members to refuse to grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question is untenable in view of the Chalageni chit dated 2.6.1958 being produced by the petitioners and therefore, the majority view to that extent is bad in law. 11 He would further contend that before passing the impugned order, the Land Tribunal has secured the report from the Surveyor and found the cultivation of the petitioners and as such, the order of the Tribunal in so far as denying the claim in respect of the land in question is liable to be quashed. Therefore, he sought to allow the Writ Petition.
9. Per contra, Sri H. Jayakara Shetty, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 who is the subsequent purchaser sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the petitioners have not produced any material documents to show that they are the tenants as on 1.3.1974. He would further contend that totally Sy.No.129/1 measures 1 acre 92 cents, which is clear from Annexure-R2 and the 3rd respondent has purchased only 98 cents and in respect of the remaining land, the 3rd respondent has no claim. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 12
10. Learned AGA produced the original records and on verification of the records, submits that the chalageni chits filed by the present petitioners are in respect of Sy.No.129/1 and other survey numbers. The receipts in respect of Sy.No.129/1 and other survey numbers were produced along with the original records and the same has been ignored by the Land Tribunal. Though the Chairman has expressed his opinion about granting of all the lands including Sy.No.129/1, by a majority opinion rejected the claim in respect of Sy.No.129/1 measuring 0.98 acre. In the circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration by the Land Tribunal.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that earlier the Land Tribunal by the order dated 26.12.1981 granted the occupancy rights in respect of certain lands. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the landlord Govinda Kamath s/o Keshava Kamath filed Writ Petition No.16138/1984 challenging the 13 grant of occupancy rights to some extent and the predecessor of the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.199/85 to the extent of rejection of their claim. It is also not in dispute that this Court clubbing both the petitions by the common order dated 6.3.1995 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order therein and remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal after holding a common enquiry in strict compliance of the requirements of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules. It is also not in dispute that father of the petitioners filed Form No.7 in respect of eight properties as per Annexure-D. The Tribunal by majority opinion of all the members including the President, has granted occupancy rights in respect of certain survey numbers except Sy.No.129/1 measuring 0.98 acre. Though the Chairman has agreed to grant occupancy rights in respect of all the lands including the property in question, the Land Tribunal by a majority view, proceeded to reject the 14 application of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not produced any material documents, ignoring the fact that the petitioners have produced the chalageni chits dated 2.6.1958 and 5.8.1960. Learned AGA on verification of the original records submits that the chalageni chits filed by the present petitioners are in respect of Sy.No.129/1 and other survey numbers. The receipts in respect of Sy.No.129/1 and other survey numbers were produced along with the original records and the same have been ignored by the Land Tribunal.
12. When this Court earlier remanded the matter in Writ Petition Nos.16138/1984 and 199/1995 by the order dated 6.3.1995 directing the Land Tribunal to hold common enquiry and proceed strictly in accordance with the Rules, still the Land Tribunal again proceeded to reject the application in respect of Sy.No.129/1 without verifying the records in the proper perspective. Though the Chairman expressed his opinion that the tenant is entitled to 15 occupancy rights in respect of all the properties including the property in question, by a majority opinion agreed in respect of other survey numbers and disagreed only in respect of the property in question ignoring the original records, which clearly indicates that chalageni chit also issued in respect of Sy.No.129/1. In view of the above, the matter requires re-consideration only in respect of Sy.Nos.129/1 measuring 0.98 acre with liberty to the petitioners and the Respondent No.3 to produce the documents before the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall consider and pass orders strictly in accordance with law.
13. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 26.12.2012 only in so far as Sy.No.129/1 measuring 0.98 acre is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent - Land Tribunal with a direction to consider the matter afresh with reference to the original Records and pass appropriate orders as per the 16 provisions of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties, in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Parties are directed to appear before the 2nd respondent - Land Tribunal on 20th March 2020.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-