B R Ganganna Gowda S/O Ramanna Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary ... on 14 July, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B R Ganganna Gowda S/O Ramanna Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary ... on 14 July, 2009

Equivalent citations: 2010 (1) AIR KAR R 668, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 928 (KAR.)

Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath

xn TEE H163 coma? or KARNAmAKA Ax sAnéaLoRE"%"

nAman THIS THE 14"'nAx or JULY€ ééﬁé  V ;'

?RESEN'I'

THE HON'BLE MR.3vswi3ﬁmK.L§HanJgﬁA?E""w'

THE HON' BLE  _MAL1}~&A'.IfH~'

w.A.No[1i8a7aﬁ 2db#cgLgA)

BETWEER :

1

B R GAHQANRA QQA sic Ramgmga GOWDA
R/O MALLA$3AE¥A_ »'

KASAEA H0853 1' _
KuN1GaL:TALBE?a w, , *
rUMKUR»nIswRIcT§.".'

SINCE nzéb $Y-;RsI

.RAﬁ§k$ﬁ3MX B G"'"  """

'_so§ at nA$E_£ R GAHGANNA GownA

r;-.5

R/OMMALLAGKATTA, KASAEA HOBLI
Ku§zGAL.mALUx, TUMKUR sxswnzcr

RAMAK§iSENEGOWnA 3 G

--x*28T¥EAas,
';;su&,oF LAEE B R GHGANNA Gawna
«=&m;mmmmmmm,wwMmzmmJ
.}.EUxIaAL mALUK, wuumnn nzswaxcr

"NARAXAHA GownA 3 G

* 27 YEARS,

sea or LA$E B R GANGARNA GOEA
R/0 MALLAGHATTA, KASAEA HOBLI



 

K'iJ'I'3C£®sI. TALUK, TIJMECEFR DISTRXCP

Ci) HONHAMMA.

(By Sri
APPEZ.12.A2~I*I'S)

AND

1

62 YEARS,
WIFE OF LATE B R GANGNNA Gowna

R/O MALLAGHAmwA, KASABA HOEL$ _ T
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DIS?RICT'az 2

.f¢.A?§ELi&mrs % 

L s cHIxKANAsoUn&g*s Assa¢xnﬁEé}é6§

THE STAKE or Kanmamgxm BY Ifs $éG§E?ARY TO

THE BEPAR$M3yT.oE_RgvERvE=j,_ 5

M.s,Bﬁiﬁn:ﬁasffa3'$ﬁ3anﬁA§ VEEDHI
BAN6aLGRE--01f  »* ~ '-

SM? 2A§?Am3AHa§ = :
WI$E OF 3A$AvAcHAR"

' *  siﬁczvnmaa Bf ER sum MUNIGANGAMHA

'D/9 Eh$AV§CHAR, R/Am JAIE'TEMPLE STREET

'_'3EH:ﬁm aazﬁ TEMPLE, KUNIGAL TOWN

$xi 3,§'§aﬁmnAvAcHAa1

HUSBEHB or MUHIGAKGAMA
R/Af_§§IH TEMPLE STREET

"ﬁﬁglﬂb JAIN wauynn
. $D§IGAL TOWH

'(THE LAND TRIBIRQAL
"K'{3NIG@AIa TOWN

KU3.*EIG&L
TUMK.'{3R DIS'.I'RIC'E
RESPGNDENTS

(By SM? : ASEA. M.' GERIMATH, HCGP FOR R1 )



Petition came to be allowed and the  was "

set aside and remanded  "tho  

21.2.33. Again after  

considering the evidence  

relying upon the   passed
o.s.1~:o.39o/53 whiozi ''  in
re. .A. No . 1 6 /1979 .  _  in
R. s . A. no . 1 0:7)     ' application filed
by the  "  occupancy rights
on 29.331934; _.'w.i':ic:h again the tenant

filed a wrii:..%po1-.:1:ioo'<..--in W.P.Na.6884/84 and which

"'i§'J;'it   be allowed and the matter

 ~ to the tribunal. The Sfriizrunal in

  the"i3*" .7'o£ litigation confirmed the earlier

 'anoi; zfeﬁected the applicaticm rum in farm

 I135}? its order dct:.?.3.1989. Against: which the

 filed a :E..R.A. before the Land Reforms

"Appe11ate Authority, and due to abolition of the

appellate authority, the matter was referrm to

this Ccurt in C.P.Nc>.8614/1993 and Civil Fetition

Sf»).



came to be converted into Writ ﬁetition in

W.P.1~3o.268Ci1/2000. The Writ Petition 

dismissad on merits by holding that the $p§é:1aa£_

herein was not a tenant _of_ tﬁé" land tand'»'

concurring with the orders; of»'tha"giri$tn§l;

dismissed the Writ Petition on-V.V:13?"ﬂ§15e;ne.VV'téeesﬁ"

Challenging the legality anﬁ eorrootnoso of the
order, the present" ﬁyea1;ti$: filed by the

unsuccessfulrapé11ant}=

3. The learné¢"ooun§o1 for the apellant has

raisedg the fo1ioﬁing"jpoints in support of his

xxarguméntéf  *

Vtn;§ﬁaﬁ¢ri5una1 as wall as the learned Single

VtJudeVhavé~ebmmittad an error in not considering

""5ftné gase of the appellant solely relying upon the

';udgmnt and decree passed in O.S.No.390/68.

ﬂkelying upon a Jhdgment of this Court in

7«f ":35aAs:RATaz mm & OTHERS V.LAND TRIBUNAL, unwx

ARD OEHERS reported in 1979(1) KLJ 30? contends

$1';



that 3 even if a decree passed   

J

appellant in a Civil Court considexi::=.§:'.the: 

and object of the Karnatake 

still the 'tribunal had  coheider  

appellant was a tenant: asvhlen' §.V.3."1'9fV?:4' it was
imperative on the  of  ~ to grant a
relief to the    'v'alte::-natively

contends since the ':5-:=:sré=,ni1e4_"entfiee still continue

in the   eﬁpeliant.V"exren after: 3..3.19v4,

the Tr:li3un--el V  "considered the revenue

entries  , "';,;?aeu_§§;;»t1cn attached thereto .

_..v1'l1ere%5§:,§r;e; on H' these.» two grounds he requests this

A"Cou1;;~'t»    aside the order passed by the.

leexﬁed  and so also the order passed

 by  eribunal, Iﬁtunigal.

VA    Eiaving heard the counsel fax: the appellant

  Government Advocate ﬁe: the responeents,

 are of the opinion that the learned Single

Judge hes. not coztmitteci any error, in Order to
5%'



interfere with his order for the _ foii'e$r.ing

336330113 2

It is no doubt true that in  E.

o-mmns Vs. mm) TRIBUNAL, um;:9:1: 

Court while considering ,'i:h4_e pr;v£rision}3AV.ic>f 

section (2) of Section   Act
No.31/'19'74 has ---held'    lies been
passed by the  Civi1,_  and after
1 .3.1974 , thef   "&s£--wé.ub~section (2)
caf SectiVi3n~¢3   its ixrmrtancze and it

is furtheghelazl "  matter can be reopened

 ,L~yf fcﬁe 1  ';'rii:>ii'nas_-1.' and ear: be considazted.

'i:3c:.aj;se:nde,;-:m;z';*'V  Subsequently, the learned Single

 V "caf  had an occasion to consider

 the c.$..~=.;¢".4;>.f" BHAGIRATHI mm a o-rm:-"es vs. LAND

 £1069: in the case of VE1~IKA'1'AIAE AND

vs. Izmcmma AND o'rrmRs reported in ma

 "'(:;égtérLaa=A1<A) seams 3.980 PAGE 693 wherein this

 Court has held that" any decree passed prior to

/'
1.

3.1974 weuld be binding on the parties. (2),

5. From the perusal of the5eQt§e Sﬁd§$@ﬂtSt 3k we are of the opinion that eten thoﬁgt theta is ne prohibition for the Land tribune; ta dcnsiaer-t the tenancy rights as on ;¢3§;9?§ itteepeetive of the decree passed thy ﬁtheﬂiﬁttil Cburt in Venkataiah's eaee, ttigitttgttgagjhela that the decree paaseé pﬁtet tel; gﬁgete it binding on the Parties» """ "wneteferef ﬁt iemelear that when the O éffa 9:, appellant has sﬁ£ﬁeté@";'aecree s that he is not a tenent of the land in question prior to tN1,3.1§?44th;¢n"5u§gment has been affirmed by this ! tceutt tn Rgsfe, No.10?/74 dt.18.1.1974, the same t7--_ is binding en the appellant. we are also of the ta_4epinien.ttet whenever 3 Judgment is rendered by a ~«eetgpt¢nt Civil Court prior to 1.3.1974, is 'V,e$inding on the parties. If there ie a tenancy 'ediepute a on 1.3.1974 and if such land is Vested in the Gavexnment, then the question cf considering the actual dispute between the we parties would arise. In the instant cage-- the Land Reforms Act: came into the K eoxzpetant Civil Court hats u cantentian of the appellant thtatthe 3;_s"I._.a"

at the land in question. is. tenant as on 1.3.1974, the 'q;ia3.5tio1{1Vv"<;f_,j:e.st:i.ng the land in the Government ?§.ri'ré' all. when the land has Govezncnment, the questiorr alleged tenancy of the €§pp:all3iu1t:':--. 'Land '1Z'r:i.1::auna.1 does nczt arise at all," _ this point, we are of the opiéggién thrt-. 3.V§___a. Judgment; has been passed by Court prior to 1.3.1974 the vsaxtlrejxhziﬁ' on the yartieé. If a coxmterzt ci.v:i..1 .44"('.f:ai$;;'t'has hald that a person is net a the question of vesting the land in the Government under the :[.and Reforms V ' w H does not arise at all . In such circungstanzzas, the Tribunal aannat entertain the application filed. in form I:¥o.?. Similarly, if a 5*' H decree has been passed by a conpetent declaring a person as a tenant:

goes without saying such ii, V Gcvernment anti in sugh 'c::£.'I:cums§4*.é§:».n(5.és,':'; 1'.1ie.: Tribunal would get; juriséiuétigan form No.7 filed. by the

6. Tharefqxe, we._ are: in the instant casgéé Civil Courté prior he_:3.:.§1vW'vi:hat the appellant as not a of considering his applic-3.t:i.o:{" Tiihunal again daes not arise "at; a-3:1 2 "V'3§.cco£*£ii'ii§_.3'1y, graunci No. 1 is answered 'éLgé,:i._Tx1u$'t.: aggsellant . as the 2"" point is concerned, when léné has not faaen vested, zmre ravenue V' jéf1t~.:_3'.é.-5 in the records wi3.3. not enure to the "- 3.:e_§r£efit of the amellant: sinaa he has already ﬁeld to be not a tenant. 'ﬁherefere, tha presumption attached to the revenue entries will ex?"

not come tea the aid of the appellant tenancy right unless and unti3:'"a~-c:as--¥_e by the appellant that the .

to the appellant on lease! '"afteJ:"' the dismissal of his suit é§§"hefotev1§3.1974. Therefore, point No.2' 'M "against the appellant .

8 . At 1thii,=_."}f_Vstéag-§}'~':.'t"tiie' counsel for the appertilargt' _* submitted that azﬁter the dismigsgl of Rﬁﬁ ﬁ§]1é7/19?4 dt.1e.1.1974 the owner: Q3. xthté .'i*1a..?s filed a suit for bare Qinjunétioiit ' A:»;fe.=,st:r:a:":'i'.'ni ng the appellant from " his lawful possession and t»'AA"""enjoyAm:a_ntV_.c;£;f'4:i?:e: property in o.s.z~:o.2o5/'23 on the "tCfiianqf"Mﬁhsiff at Tumknr and the said suit is Vtpeﬁding} Even if the suit had been filed by the in such a suit the right of the owner naéxmot be taken away by instituting such a. suit against the appellant in View of thejid@§ﬁééf¥T~ passed in O.S.No.390/68.

9. in the msult, the "

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court