Karnataka High Court
Shri. Sagarappa S/O Kubiyappa Lamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2021
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.67994/2010 (LR)
Between
Shri Sagarappa, S/o Kubiyappa Lamani,
Since deceased by his LR's.
1. Shri. Valappa,
S/o Sagarappa Lamani,
Age: 59 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Hiregulabal,
Tq & Dist: Bagalkot. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. A.S.Patil, Advocate)
And
1. The State of Karnataka,
Reptd. by its Secretary
To Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building, Bangalore.
2. The Land Tribunal, Bagalkot
Reptd. by its Secretary.
3. Shivappa, S/o Adiveppa Halli,
Since deceased by his LR's.
3a. Chandrappa, S/o Sabanna Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
2
Dist: Bagalkot.
3b. Yamanappa, S/o Sabanna Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
4. Huchappa, S/o Mahadevappa Halli,
Since deceased by his LR's.
4a. Muttappa, S/o Huchappa Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
5. Shivappa, S/o Mahadevappa Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
6. Basappa, S/o Mahadevappa Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
7. Sabanna, S/o Mahadevappa Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
8. Basava, D/o Basappa Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
9. Basappa, S/o Basappa Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
3
10. Hanamavva, S/o Neelappa Magi,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
11. Smt. Shantavva, W/o Pandappa Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
12. Basappa Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot.
13. Yamanappa, S/o Basappa Halli,
Age: Major, Occ: Agril.,
R/o Jakanur, Tq: Badami,
Dist: Bagalkot. ...Respondents
(By Sri. Vinayak S.Kulkarni, AGA for R1 & R2
Sri. Prakash Andanimath, Advocate for R4(a), 7,9,10,11 & 13)
(Respondent No.3(a) & (b) & 5 - served)
(R13 is treated as L.R. of R6, R8 & R12)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated
06.07.2010 passed by the respondent No.2, as per Annexure-G;
and direct the respondent No.2 to grant the occupancy rights to
the petitioner in respect of R.S.No.67/2 measuring 4 acres 1
guntas situated at Hiregulabal village of Bagalkot Taluk and
District and to register the name of petitioner as occupant to the
said land.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following:
4
ORDER
The father of the petitioner claiming to be a tenant of land bearing R.S. No.66/2 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta situated at Hiregulabal Village of Bagalkot Taluk, filed a declaration in Form No.7 for grant of occupancy rights. The Tribunal, by order dated 06.07.2010, at Annexure-G rejected Form No.7 submitted by the father of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that two witnesses, who are the owners of the adjoining lands, were examined on behalf of the petitioners to substantiate the claim that he was cultivating the land in question as a tenant as on the appointed date, however, the Tribunal ignored the statements of the said witnesses on the ground that they were not in a position to describe the boundaries of the land in question. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in forfeiting the land in question.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State would justify the order passed by the Land Tribunal.
5
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The name of the father of the petitioner appears in Column No.11 of record of rights and two witnesses who are the owners of the adjoining lands have categorically stated before the Tribunal that the petitioner's father was cultivating the land in question as on the appointed date. However, the Tribunal has ignored the said evidence on the ground that they have not stated the boundaries of the land in question. The identity of the land in question is not disputed. The Tribunal in the absence of any rebuttal evidence has committed an error in disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the tenant. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i)The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
06.07.2010 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-G is hereby quashed.
6
ii) The matter is remitted to the Land Tribunal for consideration of Form No.7 filed by the deceased father of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after notifying the interested parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms