Karnataka High Court
Byanna vs State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2009
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
At"
1 W.P.45488/01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALQEi'E,:"ET.
DATED THIS THE 09*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2.Q09;f H
BEFORE V _ __ 'V _
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE * V'
wRIT PETITION NO;A15T%§:8B/2O.O1«(I;__Fg,
BETWEEN:
Sri.BYANNA x
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O MUNSIWAMARRA ii I 3
MAJOR, R/O GHATA:v;;ATR,As\rAH;*\LLI_,_
SHIDLAGHATTA'TA_L.{}?(,'3'.BANGALQ_RE I
I .. ' PETITIONER
(By Sriz N _ '
AND:
. , STATE V OE ;<ARN'ATA;<A
" - RVEPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
A RE".(ENL,lE,DEf5ARTMENT,
' MS Bu.ILO1'N§;,. BANGALORE.
THEVLAVNDTTRIBUNAL, SHIBLAGHATTA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
SIOOLAGHATTA, BANGALORE.
,V."vV--.K'£?sLfiDIAPPA, S/O LATE KARAGAPPA
I MAJOR, R/O HOSPET
_,.JANGAMAKOTE,SHIOLAGHATTA,
" BANGALORE.
aw'
2 W.P.45¢88/01
T N PADMANABHAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS:
5)
H)
m)
smt.1,AKsHM1NARA§MMA,
W/O N CHANDRASHEKAR,
R/A NO.395, EWS 3"" CROSS,-.
KHB COLONY, 2"" sTAGE,: '
BASAVESWARANAGAR,
BANGALORE ~-- 550 079:
Sri.P ANANTHAIAH, E
s/O LATE SrI.T__N PAOM.ANAB'HA1AH,'
AGED ABOUT v2_8*-YEA.'RS:, V
SrI.P NARAYANA, L, V
s/O LATE Sri.TAN"PA.DM'ANEABH'AIA'H,
AGEO,ABO_m 23 YEA'RS~. A
sra;P., CHNA.NONB.A1AEa'NE, A
'Sic! -N '--PAOM"AB'ABHA1AH,
AG_ED"}x'vE5(J_U«T 25 YEARS.
"
S/0-. _LATE srihrNAPAOMANABHAIAH,
» AGED -ABOUT 2:0 YEARS,
vf)'"' E"'Sm{'.'~MUNI\V/VENKATAMMA,
Srf.T N PADMANABHAIAH,
iVAi'A")uto (vi) are residing at
v__NO.1..338, 5"' 'B' Cross, 3'" Main,
.. Psjakashnagar, Bangalore - 560 021.
GHANORASHEKHARAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR:
yaw
3 w.1>.45488/0:
a) Smt.SUSHEELAMMA,
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR,
R/AT JANGAMKOTE,
SHIDLAGHATFA TALUK.
(By Sri:R B SATYANARAYANA SINGH,
HCGP FOR R1 & R2 & . '
Sri.G GANGIREDDY, Adv.,FOR R4,(I').,to (vi). '
Sri.C R PATIL, Adv., FOR R5(a), " '
Sri.SUBBA RAO, Sr.COUN.S.EL FOR" --.
Sri.T NARAYANAswAMY,'Adj«., 4}'oR.R3~}__a.
THIS WRIT.VP.I3:;TITIQNV' "rfi.%tFvVi"'FICLES 226 81
227 or THE ;:~j:_oiA PRRYING TO QUASH
THE ORDERtPASs;é'o"3§n_R2i%,'pf. 7.12.2901 VIDE ANN--D.
om FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE co'URT MADE' 'rHE}roLLowING:~
9I;riVAthts«v..y{r.9Vit~-tietition, the petitioner has prayed for a
"writ IArz*~-.._the__v~r:at.i#.~V':re of certiorari to quash the order dated
orj'.1':;[0o_7;1A1.2oo:t..in No.LREV£:249/1974-75 passed by the Land
'A at Shidlaghatta, rejecting the ciaim of the
'fpeti.tioner for occupancy rights.
§Lg..2fgw,,»i.
4 w.1>.45433/0:
2. Petitioner fiied Form No.7 before the4vv~.i;a..nd~.Vv
Tribunal on 31.12.1974 claiming occupancy 1-
of Sy.No.26/1 measuring 2 acres V
measuring 2 acres 22 guntas, Sy.i\i'o.4g5/2. 'rneasurifig'-~.,,,,3u7:_'
acres and Sy.No.115 measuring*1..__acre''1,8"gun'ta'sit.s'ituated %
at Ghatamaranahalii Viliage in iburing
the course of evidence Tr_ibiu'n.agi,:petitioner stated
that he is not ciaigming respect of
Sy.No.26/1, 45/2i." par;d:rr% Village in
Shidlaghatta " vtinaind, the petitioner
restricted Sy.iV\io.32 to an extent of 1
acre 26 guntas measuring 1 acre 38
guntas,. :.A--dmittued!.y,"in No.7 filed by the petitioner
Zhiefo-regV'i'i'the*f*Tr§»¥?Nnal,vHW§y.No.45/1 was not included.
Su'bseque'nt.iy;«...%.v"inf;~.gt1he year 1998, petitioner fiied an
Vi"*appiicaiti.oVn for'_e~ri1iendment of Form No.7 to incorporate
*-«..TjVSy_.'ixi.oA.45/1'.-D' At one stage, the Tribunal rejected the
4"*--V.V'a'mVen_d~me.r'it appiication fiied by the petitioner.
1 'ii.t"s--ao_sMeti;uentiy, this Court vide order dated 09.07.1999 in
°:.._'tw.:P.No.36701/1998 directed the Tribunal to consider the
§~¥w~.../
5 W.P.45488/01
amendment application filed by the petitioner in acco_rd,a'nce..v
with iaw after providing an opportunity of.iheairijnigj',
Thereafter the Tribunal recorded the statement''o*f.:both~:the '4
parties, their witnesses and passed:=.._the--rirnpugried
rejecting the claim of petitioner.>'HenceVth.is' writivpet.ijtiv0n,
3. Heard arguments ong..iJothVi.:'the'-sgide and' perused
the entire writ papers.
4. rejected
the claim of of Sy.No.32 on the
ground the same is not
regranted __ti=.eV the land has vested in
Government, Therefoire, theTTribunaE rejected the claim of
1-'t'he'*pet'itionier irir.respectwof Sy.l\io.32. Learned counsel for
the r--petiirtior.e'r~r._fairlysubmits that he has no grievance about
"the imp--u__gned~ 'order in so far as it reiates to rejection of
Ciijgfclaliirwnof petivtioner in Sy.No.32. Therefore, the writ petition
it reiates to Sy.No.32 is liable to be rejected.
gpivwk
5 W.P.45-488/01
5. The only controversy before this COUrt"~.i_S'««.,llfi.vv
respect of 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.45/1. ~
Form No.7 filed by the petitioner on 31,.,1o.19e3.iitem net
included this Sy.No.45/1. Further the'».,nar§'i'e..oféoyt-nler of
land i.e., respondent No.4 herein' was also not rrtenti.o«n.e,d«5in
Form No.7. It is seen from the that oirigwinaliyvdl acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.45/1';..,,l5felortt;s:.'_,'to"'*~tif,%'~jQint family of respondent No.4, under deed dated 12.05.1957 respo.ndéenit'_'.'ldo:;'4 of land in Sy.No.45/1. T5.ite;;_tintej:sVV'in Sy.No.45/1 had fallen to of the joint family by name Havavllappa. under a registered sale deed dated ,A16.uO1-..v1V9618 titayalappa sold his share of 39 'm{'S%,#i.tNo.4'S/1 inflfavonr of respondent No.4. Thus, resVpondenit...N'e%.y4dlbelcame the absolute owner of the entire i"f"'i"extento~f__1 acreVn38l guntas in Sy.No.45/1. Subsequently, on 1,97-é,vv._rtespondent No.4 mortgaged this land in favour étixof,t'tte"p.et'i-ltioner. Thereafter, under a registered deed dated respondent No.3 purchased the entire extent of in Sy.No.4S/1 from respondent No.4 subject to the dw 7 W.P.»45488/{)1 mortgage in favour of the petitioner. Therea.fter, respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner V. the mortgage. Since the petitioner failed to ' demand made by respondent No.3:,"i'he*«.fi_le.d redemption of mortgage in 0.5.No.8/1A98§*.__Al_ong'_the»reafter«~.71if in the year 1998, the petitioner fi.l:e'd»an hap.pi'icaVt'ion"':,hefore the Tribunal seeking ame.ndme.n't"uF'o_rm l\lo'."7."VE The explanation of the petitioner"thathendas:aVnf_i.!.li'terate and by mistake, he has rjoiigincluzgied: V1vForm No.7 is unacceptable. he"by'"7p_co,nsi_dering the entire material '_ArecordV_ :VA1',,'inc:.l£:d..l'__f':~'_-1 I the proceedings in O.S.No.8/19A89V_ rightiyérej'ected_"the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of .:omiN¢.7.i% I find no justifiable ground to I-inte'rferéw.yithfthveimpuglnled order rejecting the,claim of the petlitiolner'fo.r"a.men'dment of Form No.7. g 6. the case of the petitioner that the joint .1 of-'respondent No.4 leased Sy.No.45/1 under a lease 'V""»."~'..;deedRtjlalted 24.12.1967. Again, this contention of the ' petitiolner is false and contrary to the evidence available on d~mA 3 w.p.4543s/01 record. It is not in dispute that on 12.05.1967 u_nder..l_la._ registered partition deed, respondent No.4 guntas and one Havalappa acquired,' the ,2-emali[n:ntg»i'3g guntas in Sy.i\lo.45/1. The lease deed;"relied»._'o'n:"by',.the"¥.f petitioner dated 24.12.1967 allege-«d_V to Vh'a\r'e bee'nuAe}_<ecuted % by one T.N.Huchappa and T.N.Ha'val_appa had come into existence joint family.
Therefore, the theory of land under tease deed frornp ti-onj"V.'res'pondent No.4 is unacceptable and extracts reflects the nameroiv from the Year 1973-74.
Admittedly,V'A"it 4' l:fl'i"2:."U3..1974, respondent No.4 mortgagedthe ian.d_in'1questi.on in favour of the petitioner. 'fT_herefo're,. the i§T(_: extracts in the name of the petitioner is not -theyconeiiusiwiei'-.p1roof that as on 01.03.1974, petitioner "was the-..__tenvanti}in respect of the lands in question. The of the; land owner i.e., respondent No.4 is not me.nt,ione_d' in Form No.7. The coiumn in respect of owner of question is aiso left blank in Form No.7. In the V"«:.:'circumstances, the Tribunai had rightly concluded that the g W.P.45488/01 petitioner is not the tenant in respect of the ¥and~.ijr:4._4b_i'~..v question. This finding of the Tribunal is in accordan-ri:e"\k\ii'th?:'~- law and I find no justifiable ground toMinterfere"'wit'h.'thee same.
Accordingiy, the writ petition' is.__here'b=,r'rejecte;d"} dh* '''' .,