Karnataka High Court
Muddaiah @ Mullaiah vs Dase Gowda on 10 March, 2011
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1 MERRIE EE NEEE MEME MI MARINALARA TIRE GUUKE UP KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF MAR :
BEFORE
Aged about. ~ years.
Wi 0 chs vance and
Daughter of} iate Shri. Muddaiah
Aged: about a9 yaore. ma
c} ri, Ramesh:
pee Lute Shri k Mudd spacnin fo
5 *] Lat Shri Mud.
Aged about 55 years -
Resid ing at No.33
Shri. Vaud nee WN aya
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH GCOJUKI UF KAKNAIABKA NIGH CUURKI Ur KRAKNAIABRA FPG CUVURI Ur RARKNAIANA MGM GYRE UT KARINA AR TU
S/o late Shri Muddaiah @ Mullaich
Aged about 49 years. _
C/o Shri. Mans shaiahy ae
No. 33, Sri Vaidhyanatheshwera Nitya ;
Ma i i: Road, Kasthuritvha Ragare ..
(West), Bangalore - am
Smt. Jayalalshmamime | SO
D/O late Shri Mudaian @ M Mul laia
W/o Sri. Venkatesh -
Aged about 47 years.
C/o Shri. Manchaiah ~~
No.33, Sri Vaidhyanatneshwara Nilaya
I Main Road, Kasthuribha Nagara
- Dy C inte alingani ah
wic QO Sint. Raja rire.
N 0.33, 8 Sri \ vaiahyenates "
IGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COUNT UF KAKRNAIAKA HIGH LUUKI UF KAKNAIABKA PIUr UVURKE Ur RAKNAIARA TIVM LUURE Ur RANRNALIARA Tun LU!
(By: Smt. Geetha I Devi. M.LP.; , Adv.
1.
Nees 33, Sri ne slerieerica tania Nilaya
D/O late Shri Mudds iah
Aged about 41 years
Clo Shri. Manc ed
No.33, Shri Vaidhyanath*sbwara Nileya
I Main Road, Kasthuribha Negara °
S/ O late Shri b Mu laiah
W/O Shri, Nageraj
Aged about 37.years
C/o Shri: Manchaiah
No.33, Shri Vaidhryanaihes lwara Nilaya
I Maix Road, Kesthuribha Negara
Pipeline (West) Bangalore, = 26
. Petitioners
for M/s SMP, Associates)
Shri, Dase Gowda
S/o Venkate Gowda
Since dead by his LRS
oan (Amended vide Court Order dated 20/05/2009)
Ag acl about 40 years
; tn.
a 7 2 297 of the Constitution of India
+. order dated ad 28/ 12/ 2002 dated (08/01/2008 | on the file
NIGH COURT OF KAKNATABRA HIGH GOUKI OF KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURIL UF KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KAKNAIAKA HIGN LUUKI VF KRAKNAIARA MIG UU
S/o Late Shri. Dase Gowda
l(c) Shri. Naveen
S/o Late Shri. Dase Gowda
i{(d} Shri. San
S/o Late Dane Gowda
Aged about 19 years
All are residing at Dasavara Village
Repewcuted by: ite C a iethas a
3. State of Karnata
Represented by the Secretary
To Government, Revenue Department
N.S S. Building
Bangalore ~ 560 CO1
... Respondents
(By: Sri. LR. Kums 7 " HOGP, for R2 & R3
Sri. Purl iicai Ishwar Bhatt, Adv. for R1)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
, praying to quash the
- - gecupancy ri
the year 1973-74, which is
fori GUUKI UF ROKNALABRANIOM GCUUNT UT RAKNAILABRA MIM LVUKI UP RARKRNAIARA Might GUUKE UP RAKNAIARKA MiGM CUOUUKI UF KAKNAIAKA HIGH COU
on for Final Hearing
This petition coming
the court made the following:
this day,
ORDER
Tenant who is the petitioner challenges t the. order -- passed in case No. L.RF. 1:78-79, py the. ¢ Land Tribunal, Channapatna Talal, aio grant of 28/ 12/2002 haa reject ted. his cinin for + being registered as an occupant afe a portion Le, for 5s gurnte in Sy. No. 55/1 .
arts ped | counsel for the petitio su | "that 0 on the basis of the statement made by the earlier nd her husband Khandi Gow owner = Smt. Roran No. LRF No. 3/1977 haa conferred ights to the extent of 5 guntas in favour of we. ~-the petitioner. Further it ia seen in the said , the effect that there was an entry for made in favour of the HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MIGH COURT OF KARNAIAKA HIGH COUKI OF KAKNAIAKA FIG LUUKI UP KAKNAIARA MIGM UVUKI UP RAKNAIABRA Pur Ut Oy Bormrma stated that they have no objections to grent : 5 guntas of ls subrnitted that since there is a refererice to the affect . that there was an entry for the year 1973- 74. in 1 which me of the petitioner and also. his Bort. is eee: "they have stated that the petitioner i is es on 1 that date. The rejection of the claim as per Arinexu:
and contrary te lave. _ The responds t claimi imself as owner masts an application dated 24 /06/1979 as per Annexut sxure-B. - to g give: -posscesion of 5 guntas in respect of the said survey "number. Tribunal by its order dated 26) o4/ 1978, has decided to give possession | of 5 3. unas in favour of the reapondent. It shows that ied, who supported the case of the K in favour of the petitioner, it oe a "order. rejecting the case of the petitioner. moe es, eal rights. It is also referred by the adduced his evidence. However fan GUVUKE UP MARNALABRAM GN LUUKE UP RAKNALABA PIGN LUYUKI Ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH LUUKI UF KAKNAIAKA HIGH CUUKT OF KAKNATAKA HIGH COU appointed date, which fortifies the « case of ti the tenant or 2 purpose of grant.
3. By the impug ned order dated 28/12/2002 rejected 'the CARE, 'The order is liable to be set aside for the siraple reason that t absolutely no reasons have been : aeigned: The entire , order rums to four and half. pages © of. f which fur pages itself have been devoted for narrating facts. 'At the end 4 to 5 lines have been devoted for the: reasons, ended in passing an counsel submits _the Land mient and the purchaser who he filea written impugried order at é Anriexu re | entirety of the proceedings, but it has gone thr MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH GOURT OF KARNAILAKA HIGH COUR! OF KAKNAIABKA PIGH CUUKI UF KAKNAIAKA MIGM CUUKI UP KRAKNAIAKA PIVri Ut
4. He also submitted that, at the first instance, as per Annexure-J, owners themselves nave admitted the entry in the revenue "record co weil as . the cultivation, theme hes have. said ne objections to grant 5 gunias or, land. 'Aa it 1s accepted, that fact admitted need not be proved. 7 Therefore the order is perverse...
oe On behalf 0 of the -pontesting respondent his nsel 1 by. filing a synopsis 'submits that though the
-J does not deal with the revords. aiui decided to dismiss the application. He has ~ aubmitted that originall collusion with his Mart GUUKI OFT RARNAIARAMPGM LUUNE Vr RAKNAIAKA PiNM LOUUKI Ur KAKNAIAKA HIGH CUOUKI UF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU 17/12/1974, Khandi s in favour of them sominrlaw, 3 Marigow 2 and registered as doc ier it No. 4582 in the office of the Sub-Regstrar, Chennz patna. | Margowda. 'gold 10.25 guntas in Sy. No. 55/1 1 in favour of "Dasegowda (R1) as per the vale deed dated tp 06/1 1975 and registered as es atrar, = documer:t No. 1353. on the file of the Sub Regi When sche a transaction has been made + se 'and ths collusion with the Borammsa . we 'Khandi Gowda has filed Form No.7 claiming
-- "y ight which was sold in favour of the first earned counsel aubmitted that wn brother only made Muddaiah "file Form No.7 and in order to help him they only came ' _petitionse who is bei rig a _tejecting the case. He submitted to dismiss Mar GYVVRI UP MARNALABRA Miah LIVKE Ur RAKNAILABRA Might COUKI OF KAKNAIAKA HIGH COUKI OF KAKNAIAKA HIGH COUKI OF KAKNAIAKA HIGH C( 1G furitas in favour of him.
the as "5 ne - 7 sb the respondent statmg that they de not have any other land to their credit. On the other hond learned counsel ferring the Form No. 7 submits, that, it is filed by the petitioner has been mariced as 5 Annexure-R2 where in addition t to the claiming of 10; oe tas of Sy. Ne. 55/1 ession of total extent he has declared shat he is: in posse of 12 acr ee in various survey mumbers which is re dable at internal page No. 2 of the Form No.7. The landlord he has got sufficient lazid of. 12. creson the other hand this respondent he owns & sine li extent of 10 guntas. Hence he submitted | respondents they have deposed to : | - ; which » 8 how "appointed date that is for the year . _ , NSN GWURT VP RARNALARATIGH WWUNE UF RAKNAIARA MIGM COUKI UF KARNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU supported the order. He submits that the petitioner S except producing the RTC extract for an appointed date so has not produced any other documenits ink 'order. te . satisfy the tribunal. The Land Reforms Act and Rules requires evilence and materials to rights. The tribunal rightly rejected the
7. Thave head both the sides. =
8. From. the "impugned order at Annexure- which wis pa anne oti 30/ 09 1977 it refers entries for petitioner. Earher Tribunal expressing. that they have no objections to confer 10 guntas of laid in favour of the petitioner. This order it further discloses that as on that conferraent of ocoupancy rights. MGM WV VP MMRNALARA MMM WVUKE Ur AAKNAIARA Migr GUUKI UF KAKNALAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C is date the respondent was not in occupation of the land in question. He made an application on 26/ 04/ 1979 . for granting possession of] iand s to the extent of 5 guntas which shows that as on 3979 :
even prior to that respondent was not in 2 posseesion of . the land. Which also goes in favour of the tenant. The tribunal by ite order dated 26/ 04; 1979 directed to land to the extent of 3 gimntos pursuant to ASS mot om + 30/ 09/1 1977, The statement of the P vaicinms" ae per Amnexure-D both depositions . 'support the: case of the petitioner for The RTC for the year 7 197% 174 where the entry of the petitioner could be seen These eviderices are on the face of at colusnri No. L 22).
. it go te prove 'that the petitioner had made a claim of such materiale are available, the tomaricy.
"<. .question would be why the tribunal has reject case of the petitioner. Even examini : J, it not deal with any documen \ 6 Re OM RR oF SoG UNESP ANIMAS FIG WAZMIRE WF RVARINALAMA FIG GUUKE UF RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU i | Viroaally :
this order confines only to 10. lines where it, avoided in ing the case of the petitioner. The question 'before
9. Norrnally this would "bee " answered in dismiases the writ petition by vonfirming the order of the tribuns ' i for the following reasons.
i) From the statement as per Annexure-
-- petitioner: that he has made a sworn statement _ "dated 17/93) 1998 and he was subjected to cross- examination on 07/04/1999 where he has nalthat 'ddr ded same, the Form which MGM CVU VP RARNALARA MiGM GVUKI UP RAKNAIABA NiGh COURT OF KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ci poseescion by wirtue of sale of a land "+ extent of _ land, 6 he ie in Possession: of | When this is the fact available i * ; As per the facta it goes earlier' Kaandi Gowda a hind | a were the owners in respect of 20:5 lane: which. was. sold if favour of their son-in-law Made gowdla 0 on 27. 12. 1974. On the said date Made gowda in. turn nol in favour of Dase Gowda a wh in the veeporsdent No.1 herein by this: we vy a second "purchaser Dasegowda is in id. Since from the occupation of 20.5 guntis of le date of wale, ie., from 14/06/1975 when he is in to the emall i, berther of me is supported by owners Khandi Corsequenitly himeelf has stated in the written os SRF Te eens Ne OMERIRENPREAAINEAT EENGEE WMAJIRE ST NARIAIARA FUG CUUKT UF KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU is none other than close relative of Boramma Mere entry in the relevant cobumn for the year 73- ; 74 itself is nota conclusive one. This, isa a reivuttal . evidence. When this is dinate, petitioner should have made availabi "or any other | Here. r de not find any such independent. wits ss0s . and also other materiale tike nd revenue receipts ete. Under these circumstances, 1 'do not find a case for the petitioner. Ne doubt the order of the tribunal is ust a well reason petitioner in his crosa-
but it has got a jurisdic TEE SNE WT RARINATANS, TIT GWU UF RAKNAIARA HIGH COUKI OF KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ci discloses that he has 12 acres of land. This Aas not been disputed by the petitioner. Under these This petition is.
cis missed.
ier Articles 225, and . 227 ofthe Constitution of India, is. not only. bound by procedures tion: to. decide the "matters with the help of the fecta and materials produced before it. gly this case has. been decided. Sd/-
JUDGE