Karnataka High Court
H K Renukaradya vs State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
=fi fiN5~k'
1
IN Tim HIGB OOUR9? or KARNATAKA AT
DATED mxsnrm 6'5" naspgzg JLs_2¢:;'i',7."4' §:%:';sV;>'c'$"9
THE HON'BLE MR. JUst:¢EVfi;@..gAfi§QfiA$£5
THE HOfi'BLE MR:"JU$T$fi§*R§§i.$ALIMATH
WRIT.._A?PE§s,L-- gee'. i3.,f§g}" (ire)
H.K.Renfi3a&§§§$ gig ' " _
Kariba$agp3,'?§--yaars,'"W"
Hikkalu, U:digere,HQbli;
Byatéz, Past,
Tumkur: _Di$t; APPELLANT
(By Ad§u¢até $Ei:C.M.Nagabushana)
'§iV$ta£eLof<fiarnataka,
_'By its Secretary,
'gevenuegbepartmant,
Vidhana soudha,
Bafigaiore.
. ?ޢ Land Tribunal,
V Tfimkur Tq.
'fTumkur Bist.
:d£ s
u:3. Dadavenkataiah 3/o
Venkataiah, Kempohalli,
2
Byata Fast, Tumkur Tq.
' Tumkur Dist.
Since deceased by L.Rs.;WM_
a) Venkatamma wfo late _ ;T~
Dcddavenkataiah, 65_yaar$,'V
b) Rangaswamayya 3/o latarfi
Doddavenkataiah, 45 yga:s,_
Both are R/o Kempafiaiiigfgu q_--
Byata Past, Tumkur Tq.g*'? ;_"
Tumkur Dist., -w» * * 1
4. Nanjaraa§yéV$fo Kéxibgég§pfi@J
Hixkalu', _f5rtii':3a>re;'j--BézbJ,i ,
Byata ?9st;;Tumku:=Ta;§k;
Tumkur.pistQE" .a '
Since eceaaéd by 2,33.
3.) Putta,15eaw.r?=ik3cé1"' #é'Xc$'----t§®2j araaciya,
46 years; Hikkalu; Urdigere
Hobli, Byata 90st,
V'»=::;:n3;izr,%_ '.I'q_ A _____ . . RESPGNDENTS
_..n..m.-as...
_m_ .V"This Agpeal is coming an for orders this
V,"=&ay, MANJUKATE J. delivered the following:
3
JUBGMENT
Challenging the legalifir iv '
the order passed by the: leértiéd bf
court in W]? No.4262/Q29??? da'te§iT'v':12 :,6.2OO7,
present appeal is .
Deceasgcj géfigiiéfition fer grant
of occupangfiy of _5-30 acres of
land 51121 of Hilckal village,
Lfrciigeztwg' Ealuk. On an earlier
occas3i,::.~n,_ tv}i<:§--:"'theV' matter had some up to this
Vt'::::»11rt*: . ° %%.suz2sequez;::y; by virtue of an order
-- *;é%'.j§;1;:qc.25211/93 matter was razzitted
.v.,bac3§' {tribunal for fresh consideration.
_Q":A.,..'?1";e;~.ibur;a1Q3'by issuing a notice to all the
4
the spot. Accordingly, gxarties were
the land in question.
-. jmm;cV;':3;
inspected the property " "
evidence on the spot v_theA§xée;3fter: '"o}:der
was Fassed Qrantiflg. GC°'¥.E3a¥'i<:§"V"'1?igh1i's~-.:i.r:'E favour
of the deceased order dated
28.11.2006.
3. cha11é§gi§g""th§*Ig§aer'gas the triunal, appe11ant"""ae..:é}£::i'E§ga.§£iV£ion'._wESefore this court in WP No.#3262./2007...»':_e'.wh:;en.:'petition came to be dismissed * the that the appellant ..1j;fe.*:e::',»;15--.:. h_ad' Vvon<'::ie"" an application for grant '<.>_f' ; c<:cu§ane<zif"'.__rights by filing Form 240.7, theref6re'e§¢ 5¢annet eontend that he is the V 3;ancil§$3:c5. .'i5;cccrding1y, writ petition was 12.6.2007. Being aggrieved by the {;;,*;d&;aié" géassed in the aforesaid writ petition, appeal is filed.
§/, 6 appellant. Accorfiing to him, 1eaxnefi{Jfia§é5fiasz' mis--directed himself in d;sgiss:h§* they ?rit petition without considering the i g'ii'~:>:1rx,§is by the appellant. DueV §;::>_ ndn-wézwnsifiééifatich oi-"
the grounds urged by t}f1_ é V"-..§;pg:g§a1l'.3r2Atv,"A g;¥i:°der of the learned single c§a;li;=§fftb::_ interference of this court, V
5. Per c¢gfira;~§p§ns3i»£§g{a»3 submits that no injusti.cea"Tv been cc>zruru.'tte<:?. by the leV2i;1_:né c;Z' ar the tribunal to interfere oréers passsed by the .v.i£;rib1_n:-Sal Akicexdang to him, parties were
----<_;:rc:ss--exam:.i,ne the witnesses and al;?iQ 1€t.é on the spot and he further :;ontefidg there is no prmhibiticn for the Nta conduct an enquiry on the disputed He further contends that if an enquiry been conducted by the tribunal an the fiiisputed property, it would be easy for the d%/ 1?' land tc: come to a just cenclusion_.A"':ai§§fiéé'r~ grant <31: reject Form »b1§<::_._.."?. "Iii aircurnstanaes, he requasfis 1' t;~Eii$'~. "::£:xz:,::*t§"'~.._T '£:<;; dismss the appeal.
7.. Par contra, a:{Z'l;.§ovAvvvsu13mits that the tribunal 4;§:e precemre and it fiondxzcting an enquiry onf ta be invalid.
8. Héving j.9.I1%""-ccazinsel for the parties, the fc:li:::-wing are to be considered in _ thisV...;ja5p}3eal Iia_ thaf: (3.) Whether laazzned single J';'1dg $ an error in rejecting the And {2} Whether the tribunal was _just i2':'ic;~:§ conducfiing an anquiry an the spot aéfiducting loaal inspection?
Since these two points are inter-iiiniced 4,./..,,,,_jAj with each anther, we would like to deal with than together .
$7' 9 arguments would be heard by the office. For the first time, IweVV4"'i;éwvev._jc:oé.ae' across a. tribunal oonductizig " _ disputed land. because of VTribuna.1"' 'we well as Manber-fSecreta[3j:3r_ other}: Members were required to the disputed land and theemgnd_»;k:a'sij'¥<;;g._':;3¢ into a tribunal. __ to be conducted on the__ difficult for the respective' their witnesses present 'a:1;d* 31$;-:oa2 not be possible for a V ooxenogfz "man to'~._oroe.s-exaznine the witness on the beoeuee spot inspection would be oorztiizotedi téze presence of general public: by the and flmbers of the tribunal along W""&:v".4A"'=#Li*.:hisemberwsearetary of the Tribunal who is a *1far;g:i..;aar of the Taluk. The appellant is an agrioulturist. can any oourt expect an innocent agzcieulturist to conduct his case f5,..,-
10 by crosswexaznine other side witnesse.-.=..-j' "ale-if "
let in evidence can the spot in»-.the'u' the villagers, general Coumfissiafier so also the-_V:vj'1'a_hsiiu'Ear the V tribunal is havin§"_..its 'o.§fiee'"-xarietgh all infrastructure fa-rv B' it eequiry in accordance Witllv' understand spot anclv on the disputed land in Kganegg . we are of the opinion Athet of an enquiry on 20.5.2033 by; i;f1;"e=:' tribunal on the disputed jvisad in law and the same is against Rulte-V-1*?' :"'*.!Fi'1eA'.l"v2?w;é.rnataka Land Reforms Rules. Leexzzefi single Judge who has dismissed the .1 »_pet;:itil<'2r;A not referred to any one cf the urged by the appellant herein. The ground of attack of the appellant befere learned single Judge was that enquiry 13/ 11 conducted by the tribunal is not in with Rule-1?. 'therefore, was the part of the learnecfi ;_s;L.ng'91e1 'ate consider the pz:ovisic:sne__ 'R:11etv{:i'?A:v,._Vpf.3 Karnataka Land Reform.e::1{w.;;.ee the enquiry eonducteci 1' on the disputed land_ is ,pfqpen: fine n§nstified but without grounds which were note wthe facts and without touching the of Therefore, we are of the jvopinienw-. _ Vtiitattt single Judge has "com::..._ an efior in cii.san1'ss:i.ng the writ are also of the opinion that the '-erdger . by the tribunal requires to be "'"'«__setj aeiéie sincze recording of evidence and :hear.ing the arguments on the disputed land VA =.kTh.'.?':le canducting local inspection as bad and "--~v§1:equires to be set aside and that the order of ffi/.
12 the tribunal has to be quashed and requires to be re-considered by the 4_ accordance with law. ._
12. In the result, t;h.:;s :§.ppeA_"' a1 Order passed by the 1e'a~..:§%:.e;1 eagle in w.A.4252/2097 defied ie hereby quashed. Sim'.1a.x13{_,_ by the Land Tribunal, *,1r.:.L7T"4.:ael§a/'75-77 dated 2a.11.2ooé_ efiee 'quashed. Matter is Tumkur for fresh cons:;.dei:ai::ic§n* _ "»ijn_ "-fiicrzbrdance with law as expedm p GsVé}ib1e within a period of ' ':-37%.}: of corxstittztion of the 'V giving reasonable time for Sd/-3 Judge Séie» Fafige R_f1C.'H'3'?09